[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20170403212232.s3zynq2hh6hpnefr@arbab-laptop>
Date: Mon, 3 Apr 2017 16:22:32 -0500
From: Reza Arbab <arbab@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To: Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org>
Cc: linux-mm@...ck.org, Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Mel Gorman <mgorman@...e.de>, Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>,
Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@...hat.com>,
Yasuaki Ishimatsu <yasu.isimatu@...il.com>,
Tang Chen <tangchen@...fujitsu.com>, qiuxishi@...wei.com,
Kani Toshimitsu <toshi.kani@....com>, slaoub@...il.com,
Joonsoo Kim <js1304@...il.com>,
Andi Kleen <ak@...ux.intel.com>,
Zhang Zhen <zhenzhang.zhang@...wei.com>,
David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>,
Daniel Kiper <daniel.kiper@...cle.com>,
Igor Mammedov <imammedo@...hat.com>,
Vitaly Kuznetsov <vkuznets@...hat.com>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/6] mm: remove return value from
init_currently_empty_zone
On Thu, Mar 30, 2017 at 01:54:51PM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote:
>init_currently_empty_zone doesn't have any error to return yet it is
>still an int and callers try to be defensive and try to handle potential
>error. Remove this nonsense and simplify all callers.
Semi-related; arch_remove_memory() returns int, but callers ignore it.
Is that worth cleaning up? If so, should the implementations be
simplified, or should we maybe do a pr_error() or something with it?
--
Reza Arbab
Powered by blists - more mailing lists