On Wed 23-01-19 11:18:42, Oscar Salvador wrote: > On Wed, Jan 23, 2019 at 10:47:17AM +0100, Michal Hocko wrote: > > So this should be probably folded into the above patch as it is > > incomplete unless I am missing something. > > Well, they are triggered from different paths. > The former error was triggered in: > > removable_show > is_mem_section_removable > is_pageblock_removable_nolock > has_unmovable_pages > > while this one is triggered when actually doing the offline operation But it would trigger from the offline path as well, no? > __offline_pages > scan_movable_pages > > But I do agree that one without the other is not really useful, an incomplete. > The truth is that I did not spot this one when fixing [1] because I did not > really try to offline the memblock back then, so my fault. I should have noticed that during the review but those paths are really far away from each other so this is hard to spot indeed > While I agree that the best approach would be to fold this one into [1], > I am not sure if it is too late for that as it seems that [1] was already > released into mainline, and moreover to stable. OK, I wasn't aware of that. Then my suggestion is clearly moot. > I guess I will have Andrew decide what is the best way to carry on here. > > [1] https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/10739963/ > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Oscar Salvador <osalvador@xxxxxxx> > > > > Other than that the change looks good to me. > > > > Acked-by: Michal Hocko <mhocko@xxxxxxxx> > > Thanks! > -- > Oscar Salvador > SUSE L3 -- Michal Hocko SUSE Labs
