From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-qt0-f198.google.com (mail-qt0-f198.google.com [209.85.216.198]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C31866B0007 for ; Tue, 14 Aug 2018 05:30:55 -0400 (EDT) Received: by mail-qt0-f198.google.com with SMTP id d14-v6so15086324qtn.12 for ; Tue, 14 Aug 2018 02:30:55 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mx1.redhat.com (mx3-rdu2.redhat.com. [66.187.233.73]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id y46-v6si1055469qtc.394.2018.08.14.02.30.54 for (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Tue, 14 Aug 2018 02:30:55 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2/3] mm/memory_hotplug: Drop mem_blk check from unregister_mem_sect_under_nodes References: <20180813154639.19454-1-osalvador@techadventures.net> <20180813154639.19454-3-osalvador@techadventures.net> From: David Hildenbrand Message-ID: <82148bc6-672d-6610-757f-d910a17d23c6@redhat.com> Date: Tue, 14 Aug 2018 11:30:51 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20180813154639.19454-3-osalvador@techadventures.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org List-ID: To: osalvador@techadventures.net, akpm@linux-foundation.org Cc: 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 On 13.08.2018 17:46, osalvador@techadventures.net wrote: > From: Oscar Salvador > > Before calling to unregister_mem_sect_under_nodes(), > remove_memory_section() already checks if we got a valid > memory_block. > > No need to check that again in unregister_mem_sect_under_nodes(). > > Signed-off-by: Oscar Salvador > --- > drivers/base/node.c | 4 ---- > 1 file changed, 4 deletions(-) > > 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_block *mem_blk, > NODEMASK_ALLOC(nodemask_t, unlinked_nodes, GFP_KERNEL); > unsigned long pfn, sect_start_pfn, sect_end_pfn; > > - if (!mem_blk) { > - NODEMASK_FREE(unlinked_nodes); > - return -EFAULT; > - } > if (!unlinked_nodes) > return -ENOMEM; > nodes_clear(*unlinked_nodes); > 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. -- Thanks, David / dhildenb