On Tue, Aug 2, 2016 at 12:23 PM, Andrey Ryabinin
[off-list ref] wrote:

On 08/02/2016 01:07 PM, Alexander Potapenko wrote:

quoted

On Tue, Aug 2, 2016 at 12:05 PM, Dmitry Vyukov [off-list ref] wrote:

quoted

On Tue, Aug 2, 2016 at 12:00 PM, Andrey Ryabinin

quoted

Why WARN? I'd suggest pr_warn_once();

I would suggest to just do something useful. Setting quarantine
new_quarantine_size to 0 looks fine.
What would user do with this warning? Number of CPUs and amount of
memory are generally fixed. Why is it an issue for end user at all? We
still have some quarantine per-cpu. A WARNING means a [non-critical]
kernel bug. E.g. syzkaller will catch each and every boot of such
system as a bug.

How about printk_once then?
Silently setting the quarantine size to zero may puzzle the user.

Nope, user will not notice anything. So keeping it silent would be better.
Plus it's very unlikely that this will ever happen in real life.

Ok, I've sent out v2, please take a look.


-- 
Alexander Potapenko
Software Engineer

Google Germany GmbH
Erika-Mann-Straße, 33
80636 München

Geschäftsführer: Matthew Scott Sucherman, Paul Terence Manicle
Registergericht und -nummer: Hamburg, HRB 86891
Sitz der Gesellschaft: Hamburg

--
To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
the body to majordomo@kvack.org.  For more info on Linux MM,
see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@kvack.org"> email@kvack.org </a>