linux-mm.kvack.org archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Oscar Salvador <osalvador@techadventures.net>
To: David Hildenbrand <david@redhat.com>
Cc: akpm@linux-foundation.org, mhocko@suse.com,
	dan.j.williams@intel.com, jglisse@redhat.com, rafael@kernel.org,
	yasu.isimatu@gmail.com, logang@deltatee.com,
	dave.jiang@intel.com, Jonathan.Cameron@huawei.com,
	vbabka@suse.cz, linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
	Oscar Salvador <osalvador@suse.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2/3] mm/memory_hotplug: Drop mem_blk check from unregister_mem_sect_under_nodes
Date: Tue, 14 Aug 2018 11:36:52 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20180814093652.GA6878@techadventures.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <82148bc6-672d-6610-757f-d910a17d23c6@redhat.com>

On Tue, Aug 14, 2018 at 11:30:51AM +0200, David Hildenbrand wrote:

> 
> While it is correct in current code, I wonder if this sanity check
> should stay. I would completely agree if it would be a static function.

Hi David,

Well, unregister_mem_sect_under_nodes() __only__ gets called from remove_memory_section().
But remove_memory_section() only calls unregister_mem_sect_under_nodes() IFF mem_blk
is not NULL:

static int remove_memory_section
{
	...
	mem = find_memory_block(section);
	if (!mem)
		goto out_unlock;

	unregister_mem_sect_under_nodes(mem, __section_nr(section));
	...
}

So, to me keeping the check is redundant, as we already check for it before calling in.

Thanks
-- 
Oscar Salvador
SUSE L3

  reply	other threads:[~2018-08-14  9:36 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 13+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2018-08-13 15:46 [PATCH v2 0/3] Refactoring for remove_memory_section/unregister_mem_sect_under_nodes osalvador
2018-08-13 15:46 ` [PATCH v2 1/3] mm/memory-hotplug: Drop unused args from remove_memory_section osalvador
2018-08-14  9:29   ` David Hildenbrand
2018-08-13 15:46 ` [PATCH v2 2/3] mm/memory_hotplug: Drop mem_blk check from unregister_mem_sect_under_nodes osalvador
2018-08-14  9:30   ` David Hildenbrand
2018-08-14  9:36     ` Oscar Salvador [this message]
2018-08-14  9:44       ` David Hildenbrand
2018-08-14 10:06         ` Oscar Salvador
2018-08-14 10:09           ` David Hildenbrand
2018-08-14 12:36             ` Oscar Salvador
2018-08-13 15:46 ` [PATCH v2 3/3] mm/memory_hotplug: Refactor unregister_mem_sect_under_nodes osalvador
2018-08-14  9:39   ` David Hildenbrand
2018-08-14  9:55     ` Oscar Salvador

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=20180814093652.GA6878@techadventures.net \
    --to=osalvador@techadventures.net \
    --cc=Jonathan.Cameron@huawei.com \
    --cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
    --cc=dan.j.williams@intel.com \
    --cc=dave.jiang@intel.com \
    --cc=david@redhat.com \
    --cc=jglisse@redhat.com \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
    --cc=logang@deltatee.com \
    --cc=mhocko@suse.com \
    --cc=osalvador@suse.de \
    --cc=rafael@kernel.org \
    --cc=vbabka@suse.cz \
    --cc=yasu.isimatu@gmail.com \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body. 
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox