[<prev] [next>] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <YlaIFL8TCRfiFFgR@FVFYT0MHHV2J.usts.net>
Date: Wed, 13 Apr 2022 16:21:40 +0800
From: Muchun Song <songmuchun@...edance.com>
To: "liupeng (DM)" <liupeng256@...wei.com>
Cc: mike.kravetz@...cle.com, david@...hat.com,
akpm@...ux-foundation.org, yaozhenguo1@...il.com,
baolin.wang@...ux.alibaba.com, liuyuntao10@...wei.com,
linux-mm@...ck.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 3/4] hugetlb: Fix return value of __setup handlers
On Wed, Apr 13, 2022 at 04:16:11PM +0800, liupeng (DM) wrote:
>
> On 2022/4/13 15:55, Muchun Song wrote:
> > On Wed, Apr 13, 2022 at 03:29:14AM +0000, Peng Liu wrote:
> > > When __setup() return '0', using invalid option values causes the
> > > entire kernel boot option string to be reported as Unknown. Hugetlb
> > > calls __setup() and will return '0' when set invalid parameter
> > > string.
> > >
> > > The following phenomenon is observed:
> > > cmdline:
> > > hugepagesz=1Y hugepages=1
> > > dmesg:
> > > HugeTLB: unsupported hugepagesz=1Y
> > > HugeTLB: hugepages=1 does not follow a valid hugepagesz, ignoring
> > > Unknown kernel command line parameters "hugepagesz=1Y hugepages=1"
> > >
> > > Since hugetlb will print warning/error information before return for
> > > invalid parameter string, just use return '1' to avoid print again.
> > >
> > Can't return -EINVAL? It is weird to return 1 on failure.
> >
> > Thanks.
> >
> > .
>
> Not against "return -EINVAL", but consistent with:
> 1d02b444b8d1 ("tracing: Fix return value of __setup handlers")
I think it is better not return 1. I don't think it's a good habit we
should follow.
Thanks.
Thanks.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists