[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20191127141532.525708b65a96fd614595bae8@linux-foundation.org>
Date: Wed, 27 Nov 2019 14:15:32 -0800
From: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
To: David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>,
Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>,
Pavel Tatashin <pasha.tatashin@...een.com>,
Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.com>,
Oscar Salvador <osalvador@...e.de>,
Chris von Recklinghausen <crecklin@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] drivers/base/node.c: Simplify
unregister_memory_block_under_nodes()
On Wed, 27 Nov 2019 17:53:12 +0100 David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com> wrote:
> Just a note that this was actually also a bugfix as noted by Chris.
>
> If the memory we are removing was never onlined,
> get_nid_for_pfn()->pfn_to_nid() will return garbage. Removing will
> succeed but links will remain in place.
>
> Can be triggered by
>
> 1. hotplugging a DIMM to node 1
> 2. not onlining the memory blocks
> 3. unplugging it
> 4. re-plugging it to node 1
>
> We will trigger the BUG_ON(ret) in add_memory_resource(), because
> link_mem_sections() will return with -EEXIST.
Oh. In that case case we please redo the patch as a bugfix?
Appropriate title and changelog? And perhaps the bugfix can be split
from the cleanup, to make the former more backportable?
Powered by blists - more mailing lists