Re: [PATCH v7 2/2] Refactor part of the oom report in dump_header

[Mike Rapoport]

On Mon, Jun 04, 2018 at 10:41:10AM +0800, çèé wrote:
> Hi Tetsuo
> > Since origin_memcg_name is printed for both memcg OOM and !memcg OOM, it is strange that origin_memcg_name is updated only when memcg != NULL. Have you really tested !memcg OOM case?
> 
> if memcg == NULL , origin_memcg_name will also be NULL, so the length
> of it is 0. origin_memcg_name will be "(null)". I've tested !memcg OOM
> case with CONFIG_MEMCG and !CONFIG_MEMCG, and found nothing wrong.
> 
> Thanks
> Wind
> çèé <ufo19890607@xxxxxxxxx> ä2018å6æ4æåä äå9:58åéï
> >
> > Hi Mike
> > > Please keep the brief description of the function actually brief and move the detailed explanation after the parameters description.
> > Thanks for your advice.
> >
> > > The allocation constraint is detected by the dump_header() callers, why not just use it here?
> > David suggest that constraint need to be printed in the oom report, so
> > I add the enum variable in this function.

My question was why do you call to alloc_constrained in the dump_header()
function rather than pass the constraint that was detected a bit earlier to
that function? 

Sorry if wasn't clear enough.

> > Thanks
> > Wind
> 

-- 
Sincerely yours,
Mike.