[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20200120074816.GG18451@dhcp22.suse.cz>
Date: Mon, 20 Jan 2020 08:48:16 +0100
From: Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org>
To: Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@...el.com>
Cc: David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Linux MM <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@...nel.crashing.org>,
Paul Mackerras <paulus@...ba.org>,
Michael Ellerman <mpe@...erman.id.au>,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Leonardo Bras <leonardo@...ux.ibm.com>,
Nathan Lynch <nathanl@...ux.ibm.com>,
Allison Randal <allison@...utok.net>,
Nathan Fontenot <nfont@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>,
Anshuman Khandual <anshuman.khandual@....com>,
lantianyu1986@...il.com,
linuxppc-dev <linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC v1] mm: is_mem_section_removable() overhaul
On Fri 17-01-20 08:57:51, Dan Williams wrote:
[...]
> Unless the user is willing to hold the device_hotplug_lock over the
> evaluation then the result is unreliable.
Do we want to hold the device_hotplug_lock from this user readable file
in the first place? My book says that this just waits to become a
problem.
Really, the interface is flawed and should have never been merged in the
first place. We cannot simply remove it altogether I am afraid so let's
at least remove the bogus code and pretend that the world is a better
place where everything is removable except the reality sucks...
--
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs
Powered by blists - more mailing lists