On 1/25/19 1:02 PM, Bjorn Helgaas wrote: >> @@ -453,7 +453,7 @@ int walk_system_ram_range(unsigned long >> unsigned long flags; >> struct resource res; >> unsigned long pfn, end_pfn; >> - int ret = -1; >> + int ret = -EINVAL; > Can you either make a similar change to the powerpc version of > walk_system_ram_range() in arch/powerpc/mm/mem.c or explain why it's > not needed? It *seems* like we'd want both versions of > walk_system_ram_range() to behave similarly in this respect. Sure. A quick grep shows powerpc being the only other implementation. I'll just add this hunk: > diff -puN arch/powerpc/mm/mem.c~memory-hotplug-walk_system_ram_range-returns-neg-1 arch/powerpc/mm/mem.c > --- a/arch/powerpc/mm/mem.c~memory-hotplug-walk_system_ram_range-returns-neg-1 2019-01-25 12:57:00.000004446 -0800 > +++ b/arch/powerpc/mm/mem.c 2019-01-25 12:58:13.215004263 -0800 > @@ -188,7 +188,7 @@ walk_system_ram_range(unsigned long star > struct memblock_region *reg; > unsigned long end_pfn = start_pfn + nr_pages; > unsigned long tstart, tend; > - int ret = -1; > + int ret = -EINVAL; I'll also dust off the ol' cross-compiler and make sure I didn't fat-finger anything.
