Hey Zach, On 11/1/22 01:38, Zach O'Keefe wrote: >> >> I don't understand this last paragraph (since "Also note ..."). Could you >> please reword it a little bit? >> > > Sure - I can see that it's hard to parse. > > Further up I note that, "If collapse of a given huge > page-aligned/sized region fails, the operation may continue to attempt > collapsing the remainder of the specified memory." > > Then perhaps it's enough to just state, "In the event multiple > hugepage-aligned/sized areas fail to collapse, only the most > recently-failed code will be set in errno" I like this. > > The idea here being: errno only communicates the reason for 1/N > failures that might have occured. > > However -- on second thought -- perhaps this isn't particularly > useful, as it's already implied. So, my new suggestion would be that > we should drop it. What do you think? errno usually behaves like that if you call consecutive calls, but it's not so obvious how a single call will behave: it could report the last one as in this case, or the first one since it's the one that made it break. I'd keep it. [...] >> Diff for changing a few line breaks (and removing the spurious file): >> > > Thank you so much for this! :) :) Cheers, Alex --