[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20160126152758.0638a764ba99ab215c44977c@linux-foundation.org>
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 2016 15:27:58 -0800
From: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
To: Naoya Horiguchi <n-horiguchi@...jp.nec.com>
Cc: Chen Gong <gong.chen@...ux.intel.com>, linux-mm@...ck.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Naoya Horiguchi <nao.horiguchi@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1] mm/madvise: pass return code of memory_failure() to
userspace
On Fri, 22 Jan 2016 17:27:57 +0900 Naoya Horiguchi <n-horiguchi@...jp.nec.com> wrote:
> Currently the return value of memory_failure() is not passed to userspace, which
> is inconvenient for test programs that want to know the result of error handling.
> So let's return it to the caller as we already do in MADV_SOFT_OFFLINE case.
I updated this to mention that it's for madvise(MADV_HWPOISON):
: Currently the return value of memory_failure() is not passed to userspace
: when madvise(MADV_HWPOISON) is used. This is inconvenient for test
: programs that want to know the result of error handling. So let's return
: it to the caller as we already do in the MADV_SOFT_OFFLINE case.
btw, MADV_SOFT_OFFLINE and MADV_HWPOISON are not documented in that
comment block over sys_madvise(). Fixy please? You might want to
check that no other MADV_foo values have been omitted.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists