From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo Subject: Re: [PATCH] SLAB_PANIC cleanup Date: Wed, 18 Aug 2004 01:28:00 -0300 Sender: netdev-bounce@oss.sgi.com Message-ID: <20040818042800.GC1007@conectiva.com.br> References: <20040817100755.A20489@infradead.org> <20040817150739.A22153@infradead.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: James Morris , "David S. Miller" , netdev@oss.sgi.com Return-path: To: Christoph Hellwig Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20040817150739.A22153@infradead.org> Errors-to: netdev-bounce@oss.sgi.com List-Id: netdev.vger.kernel.org Em Tue, Aug 17, 2004 at 03:07:39PM +0100, Christoph Hellwig escreveu: > On Tue, Aug 17, 2004 at 09:38:16AM -0400, James Morris wrote: > > Yes, although I'm not clear on what should be done. Returning an error > > via an initcall does not do anything, so if these were built statically, > > then the kernel would go on running after they failed. This is a general > > problem. e.g. IPv6, which is commonly built as a module, will panic if > > kmem_cache_create() fails during module load in several places. > > The ipv6 behaviour is definnitly bad. OOM situations shouldn't panic > the kernel. > > If something is can be built modular it surely isn't important enough to > panic the kernel on bootup if it can't initialize - after all people can > run a kernel without the module loaded just fine. Agreed, not because it is "not important", but because panicing at module load, even in very rare cases is unnacceptable IMHO. - Arnaldo