linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/4] mm/memory_hotplug: Update comment for hotplug memory callback priorities

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: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

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

Message-ID: <cd3d3e33-7b2e-45f1-977f-2d634ff1ef81@intel.com>
Date: Mon, 18 Aug 2025 07:08:46 -0700
From: Dave Jiang <dave.jiang@...el.com>
To: David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com>, linux-cxl@...r.kernel.org,
 linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Cc: gregkh@...uxfoundation.org, rafael@...nel.org, dakr@...nel.org,
 dave@...olabs.net, jonathan.cameron@...wei.com, alison.schofield@...el.com,
 vishal.l.verma@...el.com, ira.weiny@...el.com, dan.j.williams@...el.com,
 marc.herbert@...ux.intel.com, akpm@...ux-foundation.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/4] mm/memory_hotplug: Update comment for hotplug memory
 callback priorities



On 8/16/25 12:29 AM, David Hildenbrand wrote:
> On 14.08.25 19:16, Dave Jiang wrote:
>> Add clarification to comment for memory hotplug callback ordering as the
>> current comment does not provide clear language on which callback happens
>> first.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Dave Jiang <dave.jiang@...el.com>
>> ---
>>   include/linux/memory.h | 2 +-
>>   1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/include/linux/memory.h b/include/linux/memory.h
>> index 40eb70ccb09d..02314723e5bd 100644
>> --- a/include/linux/memory.h
>> +++ b/include/linux/memory.h
>> @@ -116,7 +116,7 @@ struct mem_section;
>>     /*
>>    * Priorities for the hotplug memory callback routines (stored in decreasing
>> - * order in the callback chain)
>> + * order in the callback chain). The callback ordering happens from high to low.
>>    */
>>   #define DEFAULT_CALLBACK_PRI    0
>>   #define SLAB_CALLBACK_PRI    1
> 
> "stored in decreasing order in the callback chain"
> 
> is pretty clear? It's a chain after all that gets called.

I can drop the patch. For some reason when I read it I'm thinking the opposite, and when Marc was also confused I started questioning things.

>