On 17.04.19 15:56, Oscar Salvador wrote: > On Tue, 2019-04-09 at 12:01 +0200, David Hildenbrand wrote: >> Let's just warn in case a section is not valid instead of failing to >> remove somewhere in the middle of the process, returning an error >> that >> will be mostly ignored by callers. >> >> Cc: Andrew Morton <[email protected]> >> Cc: Oscar Salvador <[email protected]> >> Cc: Michal Hocko <[email protected]> >> Cc: David Hildenbrand <[email protected]> >> Cc: Pavel Tatashin <[email protected]> >> Cc: Qian Cai <[email protected]> >> Cc: Wei Yang <[email protected]> >> Cc: Arun KS <[email protected]> >> Cc: Mathieu Malaterre <[email protected]> >> Signed-off-by: David Hildenbrand <[email protected]> > > Just a nit: > > I think this could be combined with patch#2. > The only reason to fail in here is 1) !valid_section 2) > !present_section. > As I stated in patch#2, one cannot be without the other, so makes sense > to rip present_section check from unregister_mem_section() as well. > Then, you could combine both changelogs explaining the whole thing, and > why we do not need the present_section check either. >
If I have to resend the whole thing, I might do that. Otherwise we can drop the present_section() based on your explanation later. Thanks! > But the change looks good to me: > > Reviewed-by: Oscar Salvador <[email protected]> -- Thanks, David / dhildenb
