On Fri 17-01-20 11:57:59, David Hildenbrand wrote: > Let's refactor that code. We want to check if we can offline memory > blocks. Add a new function is_mem_section_offlineable() for that and > make it call is_mem_section_offlineable() for each contained section. > Within is_mem_section_offlineable(), add some more sanity checks and > directly bail out if the section contains holes or if it spans multiple > zones. I didn't read the patch (yet) but I am wondering. If we want to touch this code, can we simply always return true there? I mean whoever depends on this check is racy and the failure can happen even after the sysfs says good to go, right? The check is essentially as expensive as calling the offlining code itself. So the only usecase I can think of is a dumb driver to crawl over blocks and check which is removable and try to hotremove it. But just trying to offline one block after another is essentially going to achieve the same. Or does anybody see any reasonable usecase that would break if we did that unconditional behavior? -- Michal Hocko SUSE Labs
