From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-pf1-f199.google.com (mail-pf1-f199.google.com [209.85.210.199]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 884066B02D8 for ; Thu, 16 Aug 2018 13:53:28 -0400 (EDT) Received: by mail-pf1-f199.google.com with SMTP id u13-v6so2403110pfm.8 for ; Thu, 16 Aug 2018 10:53:28 -0700 (PDT) Received: from NAM04-CO1-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com (mail-eopbgr690130.outbound.protection.outlook.com. [40.107.69.130]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id e12-v6si23333634pls.70.2018.08.16.10.53.27 for (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128/128); Thu, 16 Aug 2018 10:53:27 -0700 (PDT) From: Pasha Tatashin Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 2/4] mm/memory_hotplug: Drop mem_blk check from unregister_mem_sect_under_nodes Date: Thu, 16 Aug 2018 17:53:25 +0000 Message-ID: <20180816175325.xd4qmlauh65qszsk@xakep.localdomain> References: <20180815144219.6014-1-osalvador@techadventures.net> <20180815144219.6014-3-osalvador@techadventures.net> In-Reply-To: <20180815144219.6014-3-osalvador@techadventures.net> Content-Language: en-US Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-ID: <9F1C39793C0BC942BFE08BC4D9CCDD1A@namprd21.prod.outlook.com> Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org List-ID: To: Oscar Salvador Cc: "akpm@linux-foundation.org" , "mhocko@suse.com" , "vbabka@suse.cz" , "dan.j.williams@intel.com" , "yasu.isimatu@gmail.com" , "jonathan.cameron@huawei.com" , "david@redhat.com" , "linux-mm@kvack.org" , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , Oscar Salvador On 18-08-15 16:42:17, Oscar Salvador wrote: > From: Oscar Salvador >=20 > Before calling to unregister_mem_sect_under_nodes(), > remove_memory_section() already checks if we got a valid memory_block. >=20 > No need to check that again in unregister_mem_sect_under_nodes(). >=20 > If more functions start using unregister_mem_sect_under_nodes() in the > future, we can always place a WARN_ON to catch null mem_blk's so we can > safely back off. >=20 > For now, let us keep the check in remove_memory_section() since it is the > only function that uses it. >=20 > Signed-off-by: Oscar Salvador > Reviewed-by: Andrew Morton Reviewed-by: Pavel Tatashin > --- > drivers/base/node.c | 4 ---- > 1 file changed, 4 deletions(-) >=20 > diff --git a/drivers/base/node.c b/drivers/base/node.c > index 1ac4c36e13bb..dd3bdab230b2 100644 > --- a/drivers/base/node.c > +++ b/drivers/base/node.c > @@ -455,10 +455,6 @@ int unregister_mem_sect_under_nodes(struct memory_bl= ock *mem_blk, > NODEMASK_ALLOC(nodemask_t, unlinked_nodes, GFP_KERNEL); > unsigned long pfn, sect_start_pfn, sect_end_pfn; > =20 > - if (!mem_blk) { > - NODEMASK_FREE(unlinked_nodes); > - return -EFAULT; > - } > if (!unlinked_nodes) > return -ENOMEM; > nodes_clear(*unlinked_nodes); > --=20 > 2.13.6 > =