RE: Cosmetic bugs?

Jones D (djones2@glam.ac.uk)
Thu, 23 Sep 1999 14:32:01 +0100


> On Tue, 21 Sep 1999, Steve Dodd wrote:
> > On Mon, Sep 20, 1999 at 06:43:36PM +0100, ULISES ALONSO
> > CAMARO wrote:
> >
> > > kmem_cache_create is called by there is no check in what
> > > they return, that is, they do not panic() if they can't
> > > create cache entry, which seems to me wrong
> > AFAICS,
> ^ ^ ^ ^
> What does this mean?

It means 'As far as I can see' :-)

> > there's no way to recover in that situation, so not much point in
> > checking the return code. Anything that tries to access the
> > cache ptr will
> > oops cleanly and give a backtrace. Hopefully it should be an "almost
> > never happens" situation anyway.
> yes, that's the reason I say "it's a cosmetic bug", but I
> think It should
> be fixed, there is no good reason not to add that few lines of code
> don't you think so?

There are many locations in the kernel that due this (and similar things).
A list was generated by someone a while back. It can be found at
http://suberic.net/~kevin/linuxbugs.txt
I don't know what kernel the list was compiled against, and some of these
may have moved, or been fixed by now.

But as it's already been said, for a lot of these incidents, there is often
no 'nice way out' when things fail. Trapping all these cases to panic and
explain why would probably be not worth the space that they would take up,
as they really are 99.9% impossible to hit. (Or at least should be).

regards,

Dave.

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