From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mgamail.intel.com (mgamail.intel.com [198.175.65.16]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7EDE6207A0B; Mon, 18 Aug 2025 14:09:00 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=198.175.65.16 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1755526142; cv=none; b=VEwRpgi1gLC5cK8L9hqCx3bRUd4LZUhc9SGOCQBT+7zlDtIzJwk5nq4h/HvXxuBRxoBC/s60fTa7HrjjAFiBYQWNwhekzPyDGCyKrQ7deK1EPUrIlsp8gH1q1NI5LValmr8aHKS7Y6BYndqaolBTpXQb5qSQ/FJZiowBl9gLrqs= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1755526142; c=relaxed/simple; bh=3g19J1X9s3bz8Fgt5s8uW8MlkBC9D5GiHsIpGBalIe8=; h=Message-ID:Date:MIME-Version:Subject:To:Cc:References:From: In-Reply-To:Content-Type; b=X2AbH1MWhS56v792KNhK77kzo/9bAXhIt2V6uLHB5bCmioPQNvQGNtdqDeA/SJac4ZjyHUhzLW016mBq3m+5dYoS85GavGKlbcROdTGr4FkMw2q0DGWdqzsYDnRQXvyWyvFKSnOtdFXm6yOFgwufliSIsfgYKD3UkNIJ0RrdirY= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=intel.com; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=intel.com; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=intel.com header.i=@intel.com header.b=NiUXYv2s; arc=none smtp.client-ip=198.175.65.16 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=intel.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=intel.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=intel.com header.i=@intel.com header.b="NiUXYv2s" DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=intel.com; i=@intel.com; q=dns/txt; s=Intel; t=1755526141; x=1787062141; h=message-id:date:mime-version:subject:to:cc:references: from:in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding; bh=3g19J1X9s3bz8Fgt5s8uW8MlkBC9D5GiHsIpGBalIe8=; b=NiUXYv2sgc3/Fsxwt9MRCwlA8TCsAPzt/N9Jxo9HWC5IrmZ14QAlI787 p7l7SJ5UcbZMr2xHSLz7RpnPp3y/7actNbylS652d02DCZkLRzWW4V11J axHVXSVM1VlmdqkCoYC0hvtvG7ATKT12VnAYShio01QZUenJhLy62J9Oc qoupmRPrjglgUXWLl4sT+AqqgC1IJ+SbfGYV0QOOwzbw6fnzkEjHQzvUq HIbw9Hbjop4wN4u2/bhzgrQ9M841bBTFmATjNC9fzsuEmMz3GQJSVFfo/ 3me5p1+e2VKP6/ThCJEMiVPG8kCTpfUVMZeQFGQo0rQ6HIGEcupLDPgmd Q==; X-CSE-ConnectionGUID: QhLNGhjHRmi5/SrzZdi+lg== X-CSE-MsgGUID: cgB2/h3sQrWwUIZpNzOiHw== X-IronPort-AV: E=McAfee;i="6800,10657,11526"; a="57896837" X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="6.17,293,1747724400"; d="scan'208";a="57896837" Received: from fmviesa005.fm.intel.com ([10.60.135.145]) by orvoesa108.jf.intel.com with ESMTP/TLS/ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 18 Aug 2025 07:09:00 -0700 X-CSE-ConnectionGUID: etcIFZB3Sbin3J6c2gfLaQ== X-CSE-MsgGUID: 4UM+PZ20QIKHjHfYv2T9mg== X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="6.17,293,1747724400"; d="scan'208";a="171807103" Received: from cvapit-mobl1 (HELO [10.247.119.195]) ([10.247.119.195]) by fmviesa005-auth.fm.intel.com with ESMTP/TLS/ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 18 Aug 2025 07:08:52 -0700 Message-ID: Date: Mon, 18 Aug 2025 07:08:46 -0700 Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/4] mm/memory_hotplug: Update comment for hotplug memory callback priorities To: David Hildenbrand , linux-cxl@vger.kernel.org, linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Cc: gregkh@linuxfoundation.org, rafael@kernel.org, dakr@kernel.org, dave@stgolabs.net, jonathan.cameron@huawei.com, alison.schofield@intel.com, vishal.l.verma@intel.com, ira.weiny@intel.com, dan.j.williams@intel.com, marc.herbert@linux.intel.com, akpm@linux-foundation.org References: <20250814171650.3002930-1-dave.jiang@intel.com> <20250814171650.3002930-2-dave.jiang@intel.com> Content-Language: en-US From: Dave Jiang In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit On 8/16/25 12:29 AM, David Hildenbrand wrote: > On 14.08.25 19:16, Dave Jiang wrote: >> Add clarification to comment for memory hotplug callback ordering as the >> current comment does not provide clear language on which callback happens >> first. >> >> Signed-off-by: Dave Jiang >> --- >>   include/linux/memory.h | 2 +- >>   1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) >> >> diff --git a/include/linux/memory.h b/include/linux/memory.h >> index 40eb70ccb09d..02314723e5bd 100644 >> --- a/include/linux/memory.h >> +++ b/include/linux/memory.h >> @@ -116,7 +116,7 @@ struct mem_section; >>     /* >>    * Priorities for the hotplug memory callback routines (stored in decreasing >> - * order in the callback chain) >> + * order in the callback chain). The callback ordering happens from high to low. >>    */ >>   #define DEFAULT_CALLBACK_PRI    0 >>   #define SLAB_CALLBACK_PRI    1 > > "stored in decreasing order in the callback chain" > > is pretty clear? It's a chain after all that gets called. I can drop the patch. For some reason when I read it I'm thinking the opposite, and when Marc was also confused I started questioning things. >