On Fri, Nov 25, 2022 at 02:54:44PM +0800, Wupeng Ma wrote:
> From: Ma Wupeng <mawupeng1@xxxxxxxxxx>
>
> If freeit it true, the value of ret must be zero, there is no need to
> check the value of freeit after label unlock_mutex.
>
> We can drop variable freeit to do this cleanup.
>
> Signed-off-by: Ma Wupeng <mawupeng1@xxxxxxxxxx>
Hi Wupeng,
> ---
> mm/memory-failure.c | 6 ++----
> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/mm/memory-failure.c b/mm/memory-failure.c
> index 2e62940c7bae..c77a9e37e27e 100644
> --- a/mm/memory-failure.c
> +++ b/mm/memory-failure.c
> @@ -2338,7 +2338,6 @@ int unpoison_memory(unsigned long pfn)
> struct page *page;
> struct page *p;
> int ret = -EBUSY;
> - int freeit = 0;
> unsigned long count = 1;
> bool huge = false;
> static DEFINE_RATELIMIT_STATE(unpoison_rs, DEFAULT_RATELIMIT_INTERVAL,
> @@ -2413,10 +2412,9 @@ int unpoison_memory(unsigned long pfn)
> goto unlock_mutex;
> }
> }
> - freeit = !!TestClearPageHWPoison(p);
>
> put_page(page);
> - if (freeit) {
> + if (TestClearPageHWPoison(p)) {
This reorders put_page() and TestClearPageHWPoison(), but when we run
into this else block, the target page or hugepage should have refcount > 1,
so it does not cause any behavioral change. So I'm fine with it.
Looks good to me. Thank you for the patch.
Acked-by: Naoya Horiguchi <naoya.horiguchi@xxxxxxx>
> put_page(page);
> ret = 0;
> }
> @@ -2424,7 +2422,7 @@ int unpoison_memory(unsigned long pfn)
>
> unlock_mutex:
> mutex_unlock(&mf_mutex);
> - if (!ret || freeit) {
> + if (!ret) {
> if (!huge)
> num_poisoned_pages_sub(pfn, 1);
> unpoison_pr_info("Unpoison: Software-unpoisoned page %#lx\n",
> --
> 2.25.1
