Re: [PATCH] cpuset: Rework sched domains and CPU hotplug handling (take 4)

["Rakib Mullick" <rakib.mullick@gmail.com>]

On 8/12/08, Max Krasnyansky <maxk@qualcomm.com> wrote:
>
>
>  Paul Jackson wrote:
>  > Rakib wrote:
>  >> Ok, this is the second place. But, what about the first place ( I
>  >> mean in line 614).
>  >
>  > You present me with a clear choice.
>  >
>  >     I could find your past patch, applying it to whatever it applied to,
>  >     and look to see what was at line 614.
>  >
>  >     Or I could ask you to restate your point, with enough code
>  >     displayed so that I could understand your point just by reading
>  >     your email.
>  >
>  > I choose the second choice.  Thank-you.
>
>
> I think Rakib is talking about this code
 Yes, Max you are right . I'm talking about the following code.
>
>
>  >         /* Special case for the 99% of systems with one, full, sched domain */
>  >         if (is_sched_load_balance(&top_cpuset)) {
>
> >                 doms = kmalloc(sizeof(cpumask_t), GFP_KERNEL);
>  >                 if (!doms)
>
> >                         goto done;
>
> >
>  >                 dattr = kmalloc(sizeof(struct sched_domain_attr), GFP_KERNEL);
>  >                 if (dattr) {
>  >                         *dattr = SD_ATTR_INIT;
>  >                         update_domain_attr_tree(dattr, &top_cpuset);
>  >                 }
 Don't you think , the memory allocation here needs to be checked ?
>  >                 *doms = top_cpuset.cpus_allowed;
>  >
>
> >                 ndoms = 1;
>  >                 goto done;
>  >         }
>
>  Which I think is perfectly fine and clear.
>
>  There are only two matches for
>         /attr.*=.*alloc
>  We covered both of them.
>
>
>  Max
>
>
>
>