From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
	id S1752502Ab3LSIjJ (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
	Thu, 19 Dec 2013 03:39:09 -0500
Received: from relay.parallels.com ([195.214.232.42]:54630 "EHLO
	relay.parallels.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
	with ESMTP id S1750807Ab3LSIjI (ORCPT
	<rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
	Thu, 19 Dec 2013 03:39:08 -0500
Message-ID: <52B2B0A4.8050009@parallels.com>
Date: Thu, 19 Dec 2013 12:39:00 +0400
From: Vladimir Davydov <vdavydov@parallels.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130922 Icedove/17.0.9
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Vasily Averin <vvs@parallels.com>
CC: Michal Hocko <mhocko@suse.cz>, Glauber Costa <glommer@gmail.com>,
        <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>, Pekka Enberg <penberg@kernel.org>,
        <linux-mm@kvack.org>, Johannes Weiner <hannes@cmpxchg.org>,
        <cgroups@vger.kernel.org>, Christoph Lameter <cl@linux.com>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>, <devel@openvz.org>
Subject: Re: [Devel] [PATCH 1/6] slab: cleanup kmem_cache_create_memcg()
References: <6f02b2d079ffd0990ae335339c803337b13ecd8c.1387372122.git.vdavydov@parallels.com> <52B2AB7C.1010803@parallels.com>
In-Reply-To: <52B2AB7C.1010803@parallels.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Originating-IP: [10.30.16.96]
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

On 12/19/2013 12:17 PM, Vasily Averin wrote:
> On 12/18/2013 05:16 PM, Vladimir Davydov wrote:
>> --- a/mm/slab_common.c
>> +++ b/mm/slab_common.c
>> @@ -176,8 +176,9 @@ kmem_cache_create_memcg(struct mem_cgroup *memcg, const char *name, size_t size,
>>  	get_online_cpus();
>>  	mutex_lock(&slab_mutex);
>>  
>> -	if (!kmem_cache_sanity_check(memcg, name, size) == 0)
>> -		goto out_locked;
>> +	err = kmem_cache_sanity_check(memcg, name, size);
>> +	if (err)
>> +		goto out_unlock;
>>  
>>  	/*
>>  	 * Some allocators will constraint the set of valid flags to a subset
> Theoretically in future kmem_cache_sanity_check() can return positive value.
> Probably it's better to check (err < 0) in caller ?

Hmm, why? What information could positive retval carry here? We have
plenty of places throughout the code where we check for (err), not
(err<0), simply because it looks clearer, e.g. look at
__kmem_cache_create() calls. If it returns a positive value one day, we
will have to parse every place where it's called. Anyway, if someone
wants to change a function behavior, he must check every place where
this function is called and fix them accordingly.

Thanks.