[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <51d231c2-3659-461a-b6c3-d0e7f9fddfc1@oracle.com>
Date: Mon, 16 Dec 2024 15:37:58 -0800
From: jane.chu@...cle.com
To: Shuai Xue <xueshuai@...ux.alibaba.com>, yazen.ghannam@....com,
mark.rutland@....com, catalin.marinas@....com, mingo@...hat.com,
robin.murphy@....com, Jonathan.Cameron@...wei.com, bp@...en8.de,
rafael@...nel.org, linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
wangkefeng.wang@...wei.com, tanxiaofei@...wei.com,
mawupeng1@...wei.com, tony.luck@...el.com, linmiaohe@...wei.com,
naoya.horiguchi@....com, james.morse@....com, tongtiangen@...wei.com,
gregkh@...uxfoundation.org, will@...nel.org, jarkko@...nel.org
Cc: linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
linux-edac@...r.kernel.org, x86@...nel.org, justin.he@....com,
ardb@...nel.org, ying.huang@...el.com, ashish.kalra@....com,
baolin.wang@...ux.alibaba.com, tglx@...utronix.de,
dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com, lenb@...nel.org, hpa@...or.com,
robert.moore@...el.com, lvying6@...wei.com, xiexiuqi@...wei.com,
zhuo.song@...ux.alibaba.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v17 2/3] mm: memory-failure: move return value
documentation to function declaration
On 12/1/2024 7:05 PM, Shuai Xue wrote:
> Part of return value comments for memory_failure() were originally
> documented at the call site. Move those comments to the function
> declaration to improve code readability and to provide developers with
> immediate access to function usage and return information.
>
> Signed-off-by: Shuai Xue <xueshuai@...ux.alibaba.com>
> Reviewed-by: Jarkko Sakkinen <jarkko@...nel.org>
> Reviewed-by: Jonathan Cameron <Jonathan.Cameron@...wei.com>
> Reviewed-by: Yazen Ghannam <yazen.ghannam@....com>
> ---
> arch/x86/kernel/cpu/mce/core.c | 7 -------
> mm/memory-failure.c | 10 +++++++---
> 2 files changed, 7 insertions(+), 10 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/mce/core.c b/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/mce/core.c
> index 7fb5556a0b53..d1dd7f892514 100644
> --- a/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/mce/core.c
> +++ b/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/mce/core.c
> @@ -1398,13 +1398,6 @@ static void kill_me_maybe(struct callback_head *cb)
> return;
> }
>
> - /*
> - * -EHWPOISON from memory_failure() means that it already sent SIGBUS
> - * to the current process with the proper error info,
> - * -EOPNOTSUPP means hwpoison_filter() filtered the error event,
> - *
> - * In both cases, no further processing is required.
> - */
> if (ret == -EHWPOISON || ret == -EOPNOTSUPP)
> return;
>
> diff --git a/mm/memory-failure.c b/mm/memory-failure.c
> index a7b8ccd29b6f..14c316d7d38d 100644
> --- a/mm/memory-failure.c
> +++ b/mm/memory-failure.c
> @@ -2211,9 +2211,13 @@ static void kill_procs_now(struct page *p, unsigned long pfn, int flags,
> * Must run in process context (e.g. a work queue) with interrupts
> * enabled and no spinlocks held.
> *
> - * Return: 0 for successfully handled the memory error,
> - * -EOPNOTSUPP for hwpoison_filter() filtered the error event,
> - * < 0(except -EOPNOTSUPP) on failure.
> + * Return:
> + * 0 - success,
> + * -ENXIO - memory not managed by the kernel
> + * -EOPNOTSUPP - hwpoison_filter() filtered the error event,
> + * -EHWPOISON - the page was already poisoned, potentially
> + * kill process,
> + * other negative values - failure.
> */
> int memory_failure(unsigned long pfn, int flags)
> {
Looks good.
Reviewed-by: Jane Chu <jane.chu@...cle.com>
-jane
Powered by blists - more mailing lists