Re: [PATCH 18/24] sctp: Remove unnecessary OOM logging messages

Joe Perches
2011-08-30T01:21:25Z

On Mon, 2011-08-29 at 23:43 +0200, Eric Dumazet wrote:
> Le lundi 29 août 2011 à 14:17 -0700, Joe Perches a écrit :
> > Removing unnecessary messages saves code and text.
> > Site specific OOM messages are duplications of a generic MM
> > out of memory message and aren't really useful, so just
> > delete them.
> > Signed-off-by: Joe Perches <joe@perches.com>
> > ---
> > net/sctp/protocol.c | 3 ---
> > 1 files changed, 0 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
> > diff --git a/net/sctp/protocol.c b/net/sctp/protocol.c
[]
> > @@ -1326,7 +1326,6 @@ SCTP_STATIC __init int sctp_init(void)
> > __get_free_pages(GFP_ATOMIC|__GFP_NOWARN, order);
> > } while (!sctp_assoc_hashtable && --order > 0);
> > if (!sctp_assoc_hashtable) {
> > - pr_err("Failed association hash alloc\n");
> > status = -ENOMEM;
> > goto err_ahash_alloc;
> > }
[]
> > @@ -1359,7 +1357,6 @@ SCTP_STATIC __init int sctp_init(void)
> > __get_free_pages(GFP_ATOMIC|__GFP_NOWARN, order);
> > } while (!sctp_port_hashtable && --order > 0);
> > if (!sctp_port_hashtable) {
> > - pr_err("Failed bind hash alloc\n");
> > status = -ENOMEM;
> > goto err_bhash_alloc;
> > }
> It would be nice if you could avoid all these patches, that you dont
> even read.

Didn't read is not the same thing as didn't notice.

> As I already told you in the past, __GFP_NOWARN dont print generic OOM
> messages.

I didn't notice those had GFP_NOWARN.

> Its not because I told Wang Shaoyan not adding a useless "pr_err("Out of
> memory\n");" in last gianfar patch, that you have to remove all
> messages, with one hundred or more patches.

> If I remember well, you even disagreed at that time.

No, what I said was that it'd be better to get agreement
to delete them before deleting them.

https://lkml.org/lkml/2011/8/9/379

So I submitted an RFC and cc'd you.
You did not reply.

https://lkml.org/lkml/2011/8/25/580

> Furthermore, a failed vmalloc() is not guaranteed to emit an OOM
> message, is it ?

Doesn't seem to be, perhaps it should be
when __GFP_NOWARN is not set...