Re: [PATCH] hugetlb: Fix hugepages_setup when deal with pernode

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 




On 2022/3/30 1:43, Mike Kravetz wrote:
On 3/28/22 20:59, liupeng (DM) wrote:
On 2022/3/29 10:46, Mike Kravetz wrote:
Yes, I agree that the change is needed and the current behavior is
unacceptable.

One remaining question is the change from returning '0' to '1' in the case
of error.  I do understand this is to prevent the invalid parameter string
from being passed to init.  It may not be correct/right, but in every other
case where an invalid parameter in encountered in hugetlb command line
processing we return "0".  Should we perhaps change all these other places
to be consistent?  I honestly do not know what is the appropriate behavior
in these situations.
Thank you for your carefulness and question.

I have checked default_hugepagesz_setup and hugepages_setup will both print
some information before return '0', so there is no need to print again in
"Unknown kernel command line parameters".

Should I send another patch to repair the rest "return 0" in hugetlb?
I would suggest two patches:

1) Fix the issue with invalid nodes specified.  However, leave the "return 0"
    behavior in hugepages_setup to be consistent with the rest of the code.
    This patch can be sent to stable with "Fixes: b5389086ad7b" tag as it
    addresses an existing issue.
2) Clean up the places where we return 0 and it would be better to return 1.
    No cc stable here and just let the changes target future releases.

Thanks, I will do it as your suggestions.






[Index of Archives]     [Linux ARM Kernel]     [Linux ARM]     [Linux Omap]     [Fedora ARM]     [IETF Annouce]     [Bugtraq]     [Linux OMAP]     [Linux MIPS]     [eCos]     [Asterisk Internet PBX]     [Linux API]

  Powered by Linux