Re: [PATCH v2 3/3] mm/hwpoison: fix return value of madvise_hwpoison

[Chen Gong]

On Mon, Aug 26, 2013 at 11:41:36PM -0400, Naoya Horiguchi wrote:
> Date: Mon, 26 Aug 2013 23:41:36 -0400
> From: Naoya Horiguchi <n-horiguchi@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> To: Wanpeng Li <liwanp@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Andi Kleen
>  <andi@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Fengguang Wu <fengguang.wu@xxxxxxxxx>, Tony Luck
>  <tony.luck@xxxxxxxxx>, gong.chen@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, linux-mm@xxxxxxxxx,
>  linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 3/3] mm/hwpoison: fix return value of
>  madvise_hwpoison
> User-Agent: Mutt 1.5.21 (2010-09-15)
> 
> On Tue, Aug 27, 2013 at 11:38:27AM +0800, Wanpeng Li wrote:
> > Hi Naoya,
> > On Mon, Aug 26, 2013 at 11:28:16PM -0400, Naoya Horiguchi wrote:
> > >On Tue, Aug 27, 2013 at 10:39:31AM +0800, Wanpeng Li wrote:
> > >> The return value outside for loop is always zero which means madvise_hwpoison 
> > >> return success, however, this is not truth for soft_offline_page w/ failure
> > >> return value.
> > >
> > >I don't understand what you want to do for what reason. Could you clarify
> > >those?
> > 
> > int ret is defined in two place in madvise_hwpoison. One is out of for
> > loop and its value is always zero(zero means success for madvise), the 
> > other one is in for loop. The soft_offline_page function maybe return 
> > -EBUSY and break, however, the ret out of for loop is return which means 
> > madvise_hwpoison success. 
> 
> Oh, I see. Thanks.
> 
I don't think such change is a good idea. The original code is obviously
easy to confuse people. Why not removing redundant local variable?

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature