On Wed, 31 Aug 2016, Reza Arbab wrote: > > Nope, the return value of changing state from online to online was > > established almost 11 years ago in commit 3947be1969a9. > > Fair enough. So if online-to-online is -EINVAL,
online-to-online for state is -EINVAL, it has been since 2005. > 1. Shouldn't 'echo 1 > online' then also return -EINVAL? > No, it's a different tunable. There's no requirement that two different tunables that do a similar thing have the same return values: the former existed long before device_online() and still exists for backwards compatibility. > 2. store_mem_state() still needs a tweak, right? It was only returning -EINVAL > by accident, due to the convoluted sequence I listed in the patch. > Yes, absolutely. It returning -EINVAL for "nline" is what is accidently preserving it's backwards compatibility :) Note that device_online() returns 1 if already online and memory_subsys_online() returns 0 if online in this case. So we want store_mem_state() to return -EINVAL if device_online() returns non-zero (this was in my first email).
