lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2005]   [Aug]   [8]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: GFS
On Mon, Aug 08, 2005 at 01:57:55PM +0300, Pekka J Enberg wrote:
> David Teigland writes:
> >> but why can't you return NULL here on failure like you do for
> >> find_lock_page()?
> >
> >because create is set
>
> Yes, but looking at (some of the) top-level callers, there's no real reason
> why create must not fail. Am I missing something here?

I'll trace the callers back farther and see about dealing with errors.

> >> gfs2-02.patch:+ RETRY_MALLOC(bd = kmem_cache_alloc(gfs2_bufdata_cachep,
>
> It is passed to the page allocator just like with kmalloc() which uses
> __cache_alloc() too.

Yes, I read it wrongly, looks like NOFAIL should work fine. I think we
can get rid of the RETRY macro entirely.
Thanks,
Dave

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2005-08-08 13:38    [W:0.018 / U:0.332 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site