On 15.04.20 08:39, Anshuman Khandual wrote: > This series improves arm64 memory event notifier (hot remove) robustness by > enabling it to detect potential problems (if any) in the future. But first > it enumerates memory isolation failure reasons that can be sent across a > notifier. This series does not go beyond arm64 to explore if these failure > reason codes could be used in other existing registered memory notifiers. > Please do let me know if there is any other potential use cases, will be > happy to incorporate next time around. Also should we add similar failure > reasons for online_pages() as well ? > > This series has been tested on arm64, boot tested on x86 and build tested > on multiple other platforms. > I'm sorry, but I have to nack this series. Why? 1. A hotplug notifier should not have to bother why offlining failed. He received a MEM_GOING_OFFLINE, followed by a MEM_CANCEL_OFFLINE. That's all he really has to know. Undo what you've done, end of story. 2. Patch 2 just introduces dead code that should never happen unless something is horribly broken in the core (memory offlined although nacked from notifier). And, it (for *whatever reason*) thinks it's okay to bail out if another notifier canceled offlining hotplugged memory. I fail to see the benefit for core changes and 4 files changed, 99 insertions(+), 13 deletions(-) -- Thanks, David / dhildenb
