On Wed, Nov 18, 2020 at 11:46 AM Roman Gushchin <guro@xxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On Wed, Nov 18, 2020 at 09:57:26AM -0800, Shakeel Butt wrote:
> > The deprecation process of kmem.limit_in_bytes started with the commit
> > 0158115f702 ("memcg, kmem: deprecate kmem.limit_in_bytes") which also
> > explains in detail the motivation behind the deprecation. To summarize,
> > it is the unexpected behavior on hitting the kmem limit. This patch
> > moves the deprecation process to the next stage by disallowing to set
> > the kmem limit. In future we might just remove the kmem.limit_in_bytes
> > file completely.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Shakeel Butt <shakeelb@xxxxxxxxxx>
>
> The first stage was done over a year ago, so if there were no complains
> it feels like it's a good time to move forward.
>
> Acked-by: Roman Gushchin <guro@xxxxxx>
Thanks.
>
> The only question I have is if it's better to return -EINVAL or -ENOTSUPP.
> The latter option could be more convenient for userspace, because it will
> be clear that the kernel is not supporting the functionality, rather than
> the passed value is incorrect (e.g. if the value is read from a config, provided
> by a user). I'm not sure though, just an idea.
>
Let's see what others say. I am ok with -ENOTSUPP as well.
