On Tue 18-08-20 11:58:49, Anshuman Khandual wrote: > > > On 08/18/2020 11:35 AM, Michal Hocko wrote: > > On Tue 18-08-20 09:52:02, Anshuman Khandual wrote: > >> Currently a debug message is printed describing the reason for memory range > >> offline failure. This just enumerates existing reason codes which improves > >> overall readability and makes it cleaner. This does not add any functional > >> change. > > > > Wasn't something like that posted already? To be honest I do not think > > There was a similar one regarding bad page reason. > > https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/11464713/ > > > this is worth the additional LOC. We are talking about few strings used > > at a single place. I really do not see any simplification, constants are > > sometimes even longer than the strings they are describing. > > I am still trying to understand why enumerating all potential offline > failure reasons in a single place (i.e via enum) is not a better idea > than strings scattered across the function. Besides being cleaner, it > classifies, organizes and provide a structure to the set of reasons. > It is not just about string replacement with constants. This is a matter of taste. I would agree that using constants to reference standardized messages is a good idea but all these reasons are just an ad-hoc messages that we want to print more or less as a debugging output. So all the additional LOC don't really seem worth it. -- Michal Hocko SUSE Labs
