[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <cf793443-c14a-a1e0-856e-15e416c7f874@intel.com>
Date: Mon, 6 May 2019 11:04:01 -0700
From: Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...el.com>
To: Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@...el.com>
Cc: Pavel Tatashin <pasha.tatashin@...een.com>,
James Morris <jmorris@...ei.org>,
Sasha Levin <sashal@...nel.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Linux MM <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
linux-nvdimm <linux-nvdimm@...ts.01.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.com>,
Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>,
Keith Busch <keith.busch@...el.com>,
Vishal L Verma <vishal.l.verma@...el.com>,
Dave Jiang <dave.jiang@...el.com>,
Ross Zwisler <zwisler@...nel.org>,
Tom Lendacky <thomas.lendacky@....com>,
"Huang, Ying" <ying.huang@...el.com>,
Fengguang Wu <fengguang.wu@...el.com>,
Borislav Petkov <bp@...e.de>,
Bjorn Helgaas <bhelgaas@...gle.com>,
Yaowei Bai <baiyaowei@...s.chinamobile.com>,
Takashi Iwai <tiwai@...e.de>,
Jérôme Glisse <jglisse@...hat.com>,
David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [v5 2/3] mm/hotplug: make remove_memory() interface useable
On 5/6/19 11:01 AM, Dan Williams wrote:
>>> +void __remove_memory(int nid, u64 start, u64 size)
>>> {
>>> +
>>> + /*
>>> + * trigger BUG() is some memory is not offlined prior to calling this
>>> + * function
>>> + */
>>> + if (try_remove_memory(nid, start, size))
>>> + BUG();
>>> +}
>> Could we call this remove_offline_memory()? That way, it makes _some_
>> sense why we would BUG() if the memory isn't offline.
> Please WARN() instead of BUG() because failing to remove memory should
> not be system fatal.
That is my preference as well. But, the existing code BUG()s, so I'm
OK-ish with this staying for the moment until we have a better handle on
what all the callers do if this fails.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists