From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Pavel Machek Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH 0/3] swsusp: Do not use page flags (was: Re: Remove page flags for software suspend) Date: Fri, 9 Mar 2007 00:36:18 +0100 Message-ID: <20070308233618.GE2793@elf.ucw.cz> References: <20070308231512.GB1977@elf.ucw.cz> <1173396094.3831.42.camel@johannes.berg> <200703090034.57978.rjw@sisk.pl> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <200703090034.57978.rjw@sisk.pl> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: linux-pm-bounces@lists.osdl.org Errors-To: linux-pm-bounces@lists.osdl.org To: "Rafael J. Wysocki" Cc: Nick Piggin , Peter Zijlstra , linux-mm@kvack.org, Christoph Lameter , Johannes Berg , pm list List-Id: linux-pm@vger.kernel.org Hi! > > > That's a no-no. ATOMIC alocations can fail, and no, WARN_ON is not > > > enough. It is not a bug, they just fail. > > = > > But like I said in my post, there's no way we can disable suspend to > > disk when they do, right now anyway. Also, this can't be called any > > later than a late initcall or such since it's __init, and thus there > > shouldn't be memory pressure yet that would cause this to fail. > = > Exactly. If an atomic allocation fails at this stage, there is a bug IMHO > (although not necessarily in our code). Ok, so just do a BUG(). WARN_ON(), then do something subtly wrong during suspend is evil. Pavel -- = (english) http://www.livejournal.com/~pavelmachek (cesky, pictures) http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~pavel/picture/horses/blo= g.html