From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-path: <linux-wireless-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: from smtprelay0082.hostedemail.com ([216.40.44.82]:47967 "EHLO
	smtprelay.hostedemail.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL)
	by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751438AbbCFRfH (ORCPT
	<rfc822;linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org>);
	Fri, 6 Mar 2015 12:35:07 -0500
Message-ID: <1425663302.12017.32.camel@perches.com> (sfid-20150306_183526_250573_9FB79634)
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/1] staging: rtl8723au: Remove unnecessary OOM message
From: Joe Perches <joe@perches.com>
To: Jes Sorensen <Jes.Sorensen@redhat.com>
Cc: Julia Lawall <julia.lawall@lip6.fr>,
	Quentin Lambert <lambert.quentin@gmail.com>,
	Larry Finger <Larry.Finger@lwfinger.net>,
	Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>,
	kernel-janitors@vger.kernel.org, linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org,
	devel@driverdev.osuosl.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Date: Fri, 06 Mar 2015 09:35:02 -0800
In-Reply-To: <wrfj61aeyup1.fsf@ultrasam.lan.trained-monkey.org>
References: <20150306082140.GA9740@sloth>
	 <wrfjh9tyywm4.fsf@ultrasam.lan.trained-monkey.org>
	 <alpine.DEB.2.10.1503061030390.2715@hadrien>
	 <wrfj61aeyup1.fsf@ultrasam.lan.trained-monkey.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Mime-Version: 1.0
Sender: linux-wireless-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-wireless.vger.kernel.org>

On Fri, 2015-03-06 at 11:08 -0500, Jes Sorensen wrote:
> Julia Lawall <julia.lawall@lip6.fr> writes:
> > On Fri, 6 Mar 2015, Jes Sorensen wrote:
> >> Quentin Lambert <lambert.quentin@gmail.com> writes:
> >> > This patch reduces the kernel size by removing error messages that duplicate
> >> > the normal OOM message.
> >> > A simplified version of the semantic patch that finds this problem is as
> >> > follows: (http://coccinelle.lip6.fr)
> >> This patch removes useful warnings about what allocation failed. The
> >> messages removed are NOT duplicate!
> > Is it really the case that the information can't be reconstructed from the
> > information generated by kmalloc on failure?  To my understanding there is
> > a stack trace, and from scanning through the changes I see only one change
> > per function, so perhaps the stack trace already makes it clear where the
> > problem occurred?
> It may be possible to backtrack, but this change just makes it harder.
> There are tons of real issues to fix in this driver, this patch just
> increases the risk of patch conflicts for no real gain.

Making the allocation less likely to fail for
low memory systems is a gain.

The allocation failures themselves are low
likelihood events.  Determining which specific
memory allocation failure occurred has near
nil value.