Messages in this thread | | | From | Dexuan Cui <> | Subject | RE: [PATCH v12 net-next 1/1] hv_sock: introduce Hyper-V Sockets | Date | Tue, 28 Jun 2016 09:59:21 +0000 |
| |
> From: David Miller [mailto:davem@davemloft.net] > Sent: Tuesday, June 28, 2016 17:34 > To: Dexuan Cui <decui@microsoft.com> > Cc: gregkh@linuxfoundation.org; netdev@vger.kernel.org; linux- > kernel@vger.kernel.org; devel@linuxdriverproject.org; olaf@aepfle.de; > apw@canonical.com; jasowang@redhat.com; vkuznets@redhat.com; > cavery@redhat.com; KY Srinivasan <kys@microsoft.com>; Haiyang Zhang > <haiyangz@microsoft.com>; joe@perches.com > Subject: Re: [PATCH v12 net-next 1/1] hv_sock: introduce Hyper-V Sockets > > From: Dexuan Cui <decui@microsoft.com> > Date: Fri, 24 Jun 2016 07:45:24 +0000 > > > + while ((ret = vmalloc(size)) == NULL) > > + ssleep(1); > > This is completely, and entirely, unacceptable. > > If the allocation fails, you return an error and release > your resources. > > You don't just loop forever waiting for it to succeed.
Hi David, I agree this is ugly...
The idea here is: IMO the syscalls sys_read()/write() shoudn't return -ENOMEM, so I have to make sure the buffer allocation succeeds?
I tried to use kmalloc with __GFP_NOFAIL, but I hit a warning in in mm/page_alloc.c: WARN_ON_ONCE((gfp_flags & __GFP_NOFAIL) && (order > 1));
What error code do you think I should return? EAGAIN, ERESTARTSYS, or something else?
May I have your suggestion? Thanks!
-- Dexuan
| |