On 02.04.22 03:33, liupeng (DM) wrote: > > On 2022/4/1 18:46, David Hildenbrand wrote: >> On 01.04.22 12:12, Peng Liu wrote: >>> When __setup() return '0', using invalid option values causes the >>> entire kernel boot option string to be reported as Unknown. Hugetlb >>> calls __setup() and will return '0' when set invalid parameter >>> string. >>> >>> The following phenomenon is observed: >>> cmdline: >>> hugepagesz=1Y hugepages=1 >>> dmesg: >>> HugeTLB: unsupported hugepagesz=1Y >>> HugeTLB: hugepages=1 does not follow a valid hugepagesz, ignoring >>> Unknown kernel command line parameters "hugepagesz=1Y hugepages=1" >>> >>> Since hugetlb will print warn or error information before return for >>> invalid parameter string, just use return '1' to avoid print again. >>> >>> Signed-off-by: Peng Liu <liupeng256@xxxxxxxxxx> >>> --- >>> mm/hugetlb.c | 18 ++++++++---------- >>> 1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 10 deletions(-) >>> >>> diff --git a/mm/hugetlb.c b/mm/hugetlb.c >>> index 9cd746432ca9..6dde34c115c9 100644 >>> --- a/mm/hugetlb.c >>> +++ b/mm/hugetlb.c >>> @@ -4131,12 +4131,11 @@ static int __init hugepages_setup(char *s) >>> int count; >>> unsigned long tmp; >>> char *p = s; >>> - int ret = 1; >> Adding this in #1 to remove it in #2 is a bit sub-optimal IMHO. >> > For #2, which is not necessary for stable, #1 may be needed for stable, > this is why we split #2 into a single patch. > Again, I don't think #1 is stable material, sorry. -- Thanks, David / dhildenb
