From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751035AbdAPJzh (ORCPT ); Mon, 16 Jan 2017 04:55:37 -0500 Received: from mail.skyhub.de ([78.46.96.112]:51182 "EHLO mail.skyhub.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750855AbdAPJzf (ORCPT ); Mon, 16 Jan 2017 04:55:35 -0500 Date: Mon, 16 Jan 2017 10:55:22 +0100 From: Borislav Petkov To: Leon Romanovsky Cc: Michal Hocko , Vlastimil Babka , Linux MM , LKML Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm/slub: Add a dump_stack() to the unexpected GFP check Message-ID: <20170116095522.lrqcoqktozvoeaql@pd.tnic> References: <20170116091643.15260-1-bp@alien8.de> <20170116092840.GC32481@mtr-leonro.local> <20170116093702.tp7sbbosh23cxzng@pd.tnic> <20170116094851.GD32481@mtr-leonro.local> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20170116094851.GD32481@mtr-leonro.local> User-Agent: NeoMutt/20161014 (1.7.1) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Mon, Jan 16, 2017 at 11:48:51AM +0200, Leon Romanovsky wrote: > Almost, except one point - pr_warn and dump_stack have different log Actually, Michal pointed out on IRC a more relevant difference: WARN() taints the kernel and we don't want that for GFP flags misuse. Also, from looking at __warn(), it checks panic_on_warn and we explode if set. So no, we probably don't want WARN() here. -- Regards/Gruss, Boris. Good mailing practices for 400: avoid top-posting and trim the reply.