On Mon 03-04-17 16:22:32, Reza Arbab wrote: > On Thu, Mar 30, 2017 at 01:54:51PM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote: > >init_currently_empty_zone doesn't have any error to return yet it is > >still an int and callers try to be defensive and try to handle potential > >error. Remove this nonsense and simplify all callers. > > Semi-related; arch_remove_memory() returns int, but callers ignore it. > > Is that worth cleaning up? If so, should the implementations be simplified, > or should we maybe do a pr_error() or something with it? No, pr_error is not really helpful. Either that path can fail and we should handle it properly - which will be hard because remove_memory cannot handle that or we should just make arch_remove_memory non-failing. I have a suspicion that this path doesn't really fail in fact. This requires a deeper inspection though. I've put that on my todo list. Thanks! -- Michal Hocko SUSE Labs -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@xxxxxxxxx. For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@xxxxxxxxx";> email@xxxxxxxxx </a>
