linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] mm/hotplug: Reorder memblock_[free|remove]() calls in try_remove

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <9b85f517-fee5-650a-4e18-29408ca85804@redhat.com>
Date:   Mon, 23 Sep 2019 12:54:32 +0200
From:   David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com>
To:     Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org>,
        Anshuman Khandual <anshuman.khandual@....com>
Cc:     linux-mm@...ck.org, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Oscar Salvador <osalvador@...e.de>,
        Pavel Tatashin <pasha.tatashin@...een.com>,
        Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm/hotplug: Reorder memblock_[free|remove]() calls in
 try_remove_memory()

On 23.09.19 12:52, Michal Hocko wrote:
> On Mon 16-09-19 11:17:37, Anshuman Khandual wrote:
>> In add_memory_resource() the memory range to be hot added first gets into
>> the memblock via memblock_add() before arch_add_memory() is called on it.
>> Reverse sequence should be followed during memory hot removal which already
>> is being followed in add_memory_resource() error path. This now ensures
>> required re-order between memblock_[free|remove]() and arch_remove_memory()
>> during memory hot-remove.
> 
> This changelog is not really easy to follow. First of all please make
> sure to explain whether there is any actual problem to solve or this is
> an aesthetic matter. Please think of people reading this changelog in
> few years and scratching their heads what you were thinking back then...
> 

I think it would make sense to just draft the current call sequence in
the add and the removal path (instead of describing it) - then it
becomes obvious why this is a cosmetic change.

-- 

Thanks,

David / dhildenb