On Mon, Aug 26, 2013 at 11:41:36PM -0400, Naoya Horiguchi wrote: > Date: Mon, 26 Aug 2013 23:41:36 -0400 > From: Naoya Horiguchi <n-horigu...@ah.jp.nec.com> > To: Wanpeng Li <liw...@linux.vnet.ibm.com> > Cc: Andrew Morton <a...@linux-foundation.org>, Andi Kleen > <a...@firstfloor.org>, Fengguang Wu <fengguang...@intel.com>, Tony Luck > <tony.l...@intel.com>, gong.c...@linux.intel.com, linux...@kvack.org, > linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org > Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 3/3] mm/hwpoison: fix return value of > madvise_hwpoison > User-Agent: Mutt 1.5.21 (2010-09-15) > > On Tue, Aug 27, 2013 at 11:38:27AM +0800, Wanpeng Li wrote: > > Hi Naoya, > > On Mon, Aug 26, 2013 at 11:28:16PM -0400, Naoya Horiguchi wrote: > > >On Tue, Aug 27, 2013 at 10:39:31AM +0800, Wanpeng Li wrote: > > >> The return value outside for loop is always zero which means > > >> madvise_hwpoison > > >> return success, however, this is not truth for soft_offline_page w/ > > >> failure > > >> return value. > > > > > >I don't understand what you want to do for what reason. Could you clarify > > >those? > > > > int ret is defined in two place in madvise_hwpoison. One is out of for > > loop and its value is always zero(zero means success for madvise), the > > other one is in for loop. The soft_offline_page function maybe return > > -EBUSY and break, however, the ret out of for loop is return which means > > madvise_hwpoison success. > > Oh, I see. Thanks. > I don't think such change is a good idea. The original code is obviously easy to confuse people. Why not removing redundant local variable?
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
