Hey Alex, On Tue, Nov 1, 2022 at 4:38 AM Alejandro Colomar <alx.manpages@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > 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. > Roger that - done && have sent out v5. Thank you so much again! Best, Zach > [...] > > >> Diff for changing a few line breaks (and removing the spurious file): > >> > > > > Thank you so much for this! :) > > :) > > Cheers, > Alex > > -- > <http://www.alejandro-colomar.es/>
