[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20191218101711.GB21485@dhcp22.suse.cz>
Date: Wed, 18 Dec 2019 11:17:11 +0100
From: Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org>
To: John Hubbard <jhubbard@...dia.com>
Cc: "Michael Kerrisk (man-pages)" <mtk.manpages@...il.com>,
Yang Shi <yang.shi@...ux.alibaba.com>, cl@...ux.com,
cai@....pw, akpm@...ux-foundation.org, linux-man@...r.kernel.org,
linux-api@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] move_pages.2: not return ENOENT if the page are already
on the target nodes
On Tue 17-12-19 23:36:09, John Hubbard wrote:
[...]
> diff --git a/man2/move_pages.2 b/man2/move_pages.2
> index 2d96468fa..1bf1053f2 100644
> --- a/man2/move_pages.2
> +++ b/man2/move_pages.2
> @@ -191,12 +191,6 @@ was specified or an attempt was made to migrate pages of a kernel thread.
> .B ENODEV
> One of the target nodes is not online.
> .TP
> -.B ENOENT
> -No pages were found that require moving.
> -All pages are either already
> -on the target node, not present, had an invalid address or could not be
> -moved because they were mapped by multiple processes.
> -.TP
> .B EPERM
> The caller specified
> .B MPOL_MF_MOVE_ALL
>
> ...But I'm not sure if we should change the implementation, instead, so
> that it *can* return ENOENT. That's the main question to resolve before
> creating any more patches, I think.
I would start by dropping any note about ENOENT first. I am not really
sure there is a reasonable usecase for it but maybe somebody comes up
with something and only then we should consider it.
Feel free to add
Acked-by: Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.com>
ideally with a kernel commit which removed the ENOENT.
--
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs
Powered by blists - more mailing lists