[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAGM2reYgrpBrfhcw0O7K+sMU-qE-U_+2MzJWsG=7gSbU8n-=kA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 20 Jun 2018 21:41:35 -0400
From: Pavel Tatashin <pasha.tatashin@...cle.com>
To: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc: osalvador@...hadventures.net, Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.com>,
Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>,
Linux Memory Management List <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, osalvador@...e.de
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/4] mm/memory_hotplug: Make add_memory_resource use __try_online_node
> I don't think __try_online_node() will ever return a value greater than
> zero. I assume what was meant was
Hi Andrew and Oscar,
Actually, the new __try_online_node() returns:
1 -> a new node was allocated
0 -> node is already online
-error -> an error encountered.
The function simply missing the return comment at the beginning.
Oscar, please check it via ./scripts/checkpatch.pl
Add comment explaining the return values.
And change:
ret = __try_online_node (nid, start, false);
new_node = !!(ret > 0);
if (ret < 0)
goto error;
To:
ret = __try_online_node (nid, start, false);
if (ret < 0)
goto error;
new_node = ret;
Other than that the patch looks good to me, it simplifies the code.
So, if the above is addressed:
Reviewed-by: Pavel Tatashin <pasha.tatashin@...cle.com>
Thank you,
Pavel
>
> new_node = !!(ret >= 0);
>
> which may as well be
>
> new_node = (ret >= 0);
>
> since both sides have bool type.
>
> The fact that testing didn't detect this is worrisome....
>
> > + if (ret < 0)
> > + goto error;
> > +
> >
> > /* call arch's memory hotadd */
> > ret = arch_add_memory(nid, start, size, NULL, true);
> > -
> > if (ret < 0)
> > goto error;
> >
> >
> > ...
> >
>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists