From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Yang Shi Subject: Re: [PATCH] move_pages.2: not return ENOENT if the page are already on the target nodes Date: Fri, 6 Dec 2019 09:26:05 -0800 Message-ID: <95170ea5-5b62-9168-fcd9-93b43330a1b4@linux.alibaba.com> References: <1575596090-115377-1-git-send-email-yang.shi@linux.alibaba.com> <0dc96e40-5f2b-a2fe-6e5f-b6f3d5e9ebde@nvidia.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <0dc96e40-5f2b-a2fe-6e5f-b6f3d5e9ebde@nvidia.com> Content-Language: en-US Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org To: John Hubbard , mtk.manpages@gmail.com, cl@linux.com, mhocko@suse.com, cai@lca.pw, akpm@linux-foundation.org Cc: linux-man@vger.kernel.org, linux-api@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-api@vger.kernel.org On 12/6/19 12:25 AM, John Hubbard wrote: > On 12/5/19 5:34 PM, Yang Shi wrote: >> Since commit e78bbfa82624 ("mm: stop returning -ENOENT >> from sys_move_pages() if nothing got migrated"), move_pages doesn't >> return -ENOENT anymore if the pages are already on the target nodes, but >> this change is never reflected in manpage. >> >> Cc: Michael Kerrisk >> Cc: Christoph Lameter >> Cc: John Hubbard >> Cc: Michal Hocko >> Cc: Qian Cai >> Signed-off-by: Yang Shi >> --- >>   man2/move_pages.2 | 5 ++--- >>   1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-) >> >> diff --git a/man2/move_pages.2 b/man2/move_pages.2 >> index 2d96468..2a2f3cd 100644 >> --- a/man2/move_pages.2 >> +++ b/man2/move_pages.2 >> @@ -192,9 +192,8 @@ was specified or an attempt was made to migrate >> pages of a kernel thread. >>   One of the target nodes is not online. >>   .TP >>   .B ENOENT >> -No pages were found that require moving. >> -All pages are either already >> -on the target node, not present, had an invalid address or could not be >> +No pages were found. >> +All pages are either not present, had an invalid address or could >> not be >>   moved because they were mapped by multiple processes. >>   .TP >>   .B EPERM >> > > whoa, hold on. If I'm reading through the various error paths > correctly, then this > code is *never* going to return ENOENT for the whole function. It can > fill in that > value per-page, in the status array, but that's all. Did I get that > right? Nice catch. Yes, you are right. > > If so, we need to redo this part of the man page. Yes. > > > thanks,