linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] mm/hotplug: Enumerate memory range offlining failure reasons

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

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

Message-ID: <0005c6bb-da4c-f1f3-3c86-dc1712369281@redhat.com>
Date:   Tue, 18 Aug 2020 09:08:45 +0200
From:   David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com>
To:     Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.com>,
        Anshuman Khandual <anshuman.khandual@....com>
Cc:     linux-mm@...ck.org, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
        Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@...el.com>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm/hotplug: Enumerate memory range offlining failure
 reasons

On 18.08.20 08:58, Michal Hocko wrote:
> On Tue 18-08-20 11:58:49, Anshuman Khandual wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 08/18/2020 11:35 AM, Michal Hocko wrote:
>>> On Tue 18-08-20 09:52:02, Anshuman Khandual wrote:
>>>> Currently a debug message is printed describing the reason for memory range
>>>> offline failure. This just enumerates existing reason codes which improves
>>>> overall readability and makes it cleaner. This does not add any functional
>>>> change.
>>>
>>> Wasn't something like that posted already? To be honest I do not think
>>
>> There was a similar one regarding bad page reason.
>>
>> https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/11464713/
>>
>>> this is worth the additional LOC. We are talking about few strings used
>>> at a single place. I really do not see any simplification, constants are
>>> sometimes even longer than the strings they are describing.
>>
>> I am still trying to understand why enumerating all potential offline
>> failure reasons in a single place (i.e via enum) is not a better idea
>> than strings scattered across the function. Besides being cleaner, it
>> classifies, organizes and provide a structure to the set of reasons.
>> It is not just about string replacement with constants.
> 
> This is a matter of taste. I would agree that using constants to
> reference standardized messages is a good idea but all these reasons
> are just an ad-hoc messages that we want to print more or less as a
> debugging output. So all the additional LOC don't really seem worth it.
> 

Agreed, it's not like they are scattered over multiple functions. I
don't see any real advantage here that justify 37 insertions(+), 9
deletions(-).

-- 
Thanks,

David / dhildenb