On 18.08.20 08:58, Michal Hocko wrote: > 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. > Agreed, it's not like they are scattered over multiple functions. I don't see any real advantage here that justify 37 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-). -- Thanks, David / dhildenb
