From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1756035Ab0IGCEO (ORCPT ); Mon, 6 Sep 2010 22:04:14 -0400 Received: from fgwmail5.fujitsu.co.jp ([192.51.44.35]:56090 "EHLO fgwmail5.fujitsu.co.jp" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1755793Ab0IGCEL (ORCPT ); Mon, 6 Sep 2010 22:04:11 -0400 X-SecurityPolicyCheck-FJ: OK by FujitsuOutboundMailChecker v1.3.1 From: KOSAKI Motohiro To: Christoph Lameter Subject: Re: [PATCH 13/14] mm: mempolicy: Check return code of check_range Cc: kosaki.motohiro@jp.fujitsu.com, Kulikov Vasiliy , kernel-janitors@vger.kernel.org, Andrew Morton , Lee Schermerhorn , David Rientjes , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org In-Reply-To: References: <20100906093610.C8B5.A69D9226@jp.fujitsu.com> Message-Id: <20100907110254.C8F2.A69D9226@jp.fujitsu.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Becky! ver. 2.50.07 [ja] Date: Tue, 7 Sep 2010 11:04:07 +0900 (JST) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org > On Mon, 6 Sep 2010, KOSAKI Motohiro wrote: > > > I think both case is not happen in real. Am I overlooking anything? > > Its good to check the return code regardless. There is a lot of tinkering > going on with that code. OK. so, I'm convinced this is not -stable material. Reviewed-by: KOSAKI Motohiro