Re: [PATCH] mm/hotplug: Enumerate memory range offlining failure reasons

[David Hildenbrand]

On 18.08.20 08:58, Michal Hocko wrote:
> On Tue 18-08-20 11:58:49, Anshuman Khandual wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 08/18/2020 11:35 AM, Michal Hocko wrote:
>>> On Tue 18-08-20 09:52:02, Anshuman Khandual wrote:
>>>> Currently a debug message is printed describing the reason for memory range
>>>> offline failure. This just enumerates existing reason codes which improves
>>>> overall readability and makes it cleaner. This does not add any functional
>>>> change.
>>>
>>> Wasn't something like that posted already? To be honest I do not think
>>
>> There was a similar one regarding bad page reason.
>>
>> https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/11464713/
>>
>>> this is worth the additional LOC. We are talking about few strings used
>>> at a single place. I really do not see any simplification, constants are
>>> sometimes even longer than the strings they are describing.
>>
>> I am still trying to understand why enumerating all potential offline
>> failure reasons in a single place (i.e via enum) is not a better idea
>> than strings scattered across the function. Besides being cleaner, it
>> classifies, organizes and provide a structure to the set of reasons.
>> It is not just about string replacement with constants.
> 
> This is a matter of taste. I would agree that using constants to
> reference standardized messages is a good idea but all these reasons
> are just an ad-hoc messages that we want to print more or less as a
> debugging output. So all the additional LOC don't really seem worth it.
> 

Agreed, it's not like they are scattered over multiple functions. I
don't see any real advantage here that justify 37 insertions(+), 9
deletions(-).

-- 
Thanks,

David / dhildenb