On Mon, Nov 27, 2017 at 03:33:13PM -0600, Andrew F. Davis wrote:
On 11/27/2017 01:07 PM, Joe Perches wrote:
quoted
On Mon, 2017-11-27 at 10:43 -0600, Andrew F. Davis wrote:
quoted
On 11/26/2017 12:55 PM, SF Markus Elfring wrote:
quoted
From: Markus Elfring <redacted>
Date: Sun, 26 Nov 2017 19:46:09 +0100
Omit an extra message for a memory allocation failure in these functions.
This issue was detected by using the Coccinelle software.
Signed-off-by: Markus Elfring <redacted>
---
nak, unlike many others, these message give extra info on which
allocation failed, that can be useful.
<shrug> Not really. There are tradeoffs.
There is the generic stack dump on OOM so the module/line
is already known.
If that is the case then I have no strong feelings either way.
quoted
The existence of these messages increases code size which
also make the OOM condition slightly more likely.
These are generally used only at initialization and those
if you are OOM at initialization, bad things happen anyway
so where the specific OOM occurred doesn't really matter.
True, these messages will probably only ever get displayed if someone is
messing with the allocated structs and accidentally balloons their size,
so these are more debug statements than anything.
All those messages are result of allocation failure. The memory allocated
is later used to hold duplicate of static const data. Do we need that
copy (and thus allocation) at all?
ladis