On 25.06.19 09:52, Oscar Salvador wrote:
> remove_memory_block_devices() checks for the range to be aligned
> to memory_block_size_bytes, which is our current memory block size,
> and WARNs_ON and bails out if it is not.
>
> This is the right to do, but we do already do that in try_remove_memory(),
> where remove_memory_block_devices() gets called from, and we even are
> more strict in try_remove_memory, since we directly BUG_ON in case the range
> is not properly aligned.
>
> Since remove_memory_block_devices() is only called from try_remove_memory(),
> we can safely drop the check here.
>
> To be honest, I am not sure if we should kill the system in case we cannot
> remove memory.
> I tend to think that WARN_ON and return and error is better.
I failed to parse this sentence.
>
> Signed-off-by: Oscar Salvador <osalvador@xxxxxxx>
> ---
> drivers/base/memory.c | 4 ----
> 1 file changed, 4 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/base/memory.c b/drivers/base/memory.c
> index 826dd76f662e..07ba731beb42 100644
> --- a/drivers/base/memory.c
> +++ b/drivers/base/memory.c
> @@ -771,10 +771,6 @@ void remove_memory_block_devices(unsigned long start, unsigned long size)
> struct memory_block *mem;
> int block_id;
>
> - if (WARN_ON_ONCE(!IS_ALIGNED(start, memory_block_size_bytes()) ||
> - !IS_ALIGNED(size, memory_block_size_bytes())))
> - return;
> -
> mutex_lock(&mem_sysfs_mutex);
> for (block_id = start_block_id; block_id != end_block_id; block_id++) {
> mem = find_memory_block_by_id(block_id, NULL);
>
As I said when I introduced this, I prefer to have such duplicate checks
in place in case we have dependent code splattered over different files.
(especially mm/ vs. drivers/base). Such simple checks avoid to document
"start and size have to be aligned to memory blocks".
If you still insist, then also remove the same sequence from
create_memory_block_devices().
--
Thanks,
David / dhildenb
