[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20190701093640.GA17349@linux>
Date: Mon, 1 Jul 2019 11:36:44 +0200
From: Oscar Salvador <osalvador@...e.de>
To: Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org>
Cc: David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com>, linux-mm@...ck.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-ia64@...r.kernel.org,
linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org, linux-s390@...r.kernel.org,
linux-sh@...r.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
akpm@...ux-foundation.org, Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@...el.com>,
Wei Yang <richard.weiyang@...il.com>,
Igor Mammedov <imammedo@...hat.com>,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>,
Alex Deucher <alexander.deucher@....com>,
"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>,
Chris Wilson <chris@...is-wilson.co.uk>,
Jonathan Cameron <Jonathan.Cameron@...wei.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 10/11] mm/memory_hotplug: Make
unregister_memory_block_under_nodes() never fail
On Mon, Jul 01, 2019 at 10:51:44AM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote:
> Yeah, we do not allow to offline multi zone (node) ranges so the current
> code seems to be over engineered.
>
> Anyway, I am wondering why do we have to strictly check for already
> removed nodes links. Is the sysfs code going to complain we we try to
> remove again?
No, sysfs will silently "fail" if the symlink has already been removed.
At least that is what I saw last time I played with it.
I guess the question is what if sysfs handling changes in the future
and starts dropping warnings when trying to remove a symlink is not there.
Maybe that is unlikely to happen?
--
Oscar Salvador
SUSE L3
Powered by blists - more mailing lists