[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <a712d178-e524-fea7-a459-dd884956fc6b@linux.alibaba.com>
Date: Tue, 14 Feb 2023 14:49:51 +0800
From: Baolin Wang <baolin.wang@...ux.alibaba.com>
To: Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>
Cc: akpm@...ux-foundation.org, torvalds@...ux-foundation.org,
sj@...nel.org, hannes@...xchg.org, mhocko@...nel.org,
roman.gushchin@...ux.dev, shakeelb@...gle.com,
muchun.song@...ux.dev, damon@...ts.linux.dev,
cgroups@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/3] Some cleanups for page isolation
On 2/14/2023 12:50 PM, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 14, 2023 at 11:18:05AM +0800, Baolin Wang wrote:
>> The page isolation functions did not return a boolean to indicate
>> success or not, instead it will return a negative error when failed
>> to isolate a page. So it's better to check the negative error explicitly
>> for isolation to make the code more clear per Linus's suggestion in [1].
>
> Only one caller of isolate_lru_page() or folio_isolate_lru() actually
> uses the errno. And the errno can only be 0 or -EBUSY. It'd be
> better to change the three functions to return bool and fix
> add_page_for_migration() to set the errno to -EBUSY itself.
Sounds reasonable to me, and I can change them to return bool in next
version. Thanks.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists