From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from out30-118.freemail.mail.aliyun.com (out30-118.freemail.mail.aliyun.com [115.124.30.118]) (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 495EAC2F2; Fri, 28 Feb 2025 01:46:43 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=115.124.30.118 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1740707207; cv=none; b=kUl8SvhP+TTdChbCWW1XxY4HodZ2mdZwKENRvKK11l4skVKrlyA2H/WwuYCxJOrA8gZRl8arL8jy53uhh6VPPDbNOyH2Yi0d4BQLfhUJLDdb11UT+FG8B2R1kJm4TOxtZa/dK5JJh3xGgQzjiBt7cT5G3h5tgM+k04K9eC0QBko= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1740707207; c=relaxed/simple; bh=ZZHNCgut0dGMFXCWAAMpaymxZyfRxzSLiAKJxYuUhR8=; h=Message-ID:Date:MIME-Version:From:Subject:To:Cc:References: In-Reply-To:Content-Type; b=SeR70Lxu0lgBczZ42Ocy5LfNJWaEBtQfarN0D+uKqxq/gUocJnZBI74GUkvYa/C6wA4vxDBRyAWYAmdYBRq+XyBCwXf7olGZ36EGqS8qu95mW6gQ9clMGB0qyjCiLKcipChTOqwq99fajVUOztjte8E9Pf1uHWrJAyIuPBSyT08= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=linux.alibaba.com; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=linux.alibaba.com; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=linux.alibaba.com header.i=@linux.alibaba.com header.b=aUM/v2Vv; arc=none smtp.client-ip=115.124.30.118 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=linux.alibaba.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=linux.alibaba.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=linux.alibaba.com header.i=@linux.alibaba.com header.b="aUM/v2Vv" DKIM-Signature:v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=linux.alibaba.com; s=default; t=1740707196; h=Message-ID:Date:MIME-Version:From:Subject:To:Content-Type; bh=5r+5WkyUwaatx2CtpLzuZtA6tB6jLB9WVQM6cMSk/Qs=; b=aUM/v2VvKf8dzM596SA5GV2hIgimrJrqAebseOLiKXRUhq5Ry+3e0I+d1ESoUaAaF1fwSV4Icafx7DQQRqrR1U8X3WDMeaaIIVNoRvL4eN5XreKk//R3RXgP01B0kaWxI9G/L0v/Xc8WePRD/0dw2ir64G/wTbz5fBss1NDwZsM= Received: from 30.246.161.128(mailfrom:xueshuai@linux.alibaba.com fp:SMTPD_---0WQNqCdH_1740707191 cluster:ay36) by smtp.aliyun-inc.com; Fri, 28 Feb 2025 09:46:33 +0800 Message-ID: <0c93542f-4521-41bc-a030-5b2d8621aa6a@linux.alibaba.com> Date: Fri, 28 Feb 2025 09:46:30 +0800 Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-edac@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird From: Shuai Xue Subject: Re: [PATCH v18 2/3] mm: memory-failure: move return value documentation to function declaration To: Catalin Marinas Cc: yazen.ghannam@amd.com, mark.rutland@arm.com, mingo@redhat.com, robin.murphy@arm.com, Jonathan.Cameron@huawei.com, bp@alien8.de, rafael@kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, wangkefeng.wang@huawei.com, tanxiaofei@huawei.com, mawupeng1@huawei.com, tony.luck@intel.com, linmiaohe@huawei.com, naoya.horiguchi@nec.com, james.morse@arm.com, tongtiangen@huawei.com, gregkh@linuxfoundation.org, will@kernel.org, jarkko@kernel.org, linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, akpm@linux-foundation.org, linux-edac@vger.kernel.org, x86@kernel.org, justin.he@arm.com, ardb@kernel.org, ying.huang@linux.alibaba.com, ashish.kalra@amd.com, baolin.wang@linux.alibaba.com, tglx@linutronix.de, dave.hansen@linux.intel.com, lenb@kernel.org, hpa@zytor.com, robert.moore@intel.com, lvying6@huawei.com, xiexiuqi@huawei.com, zhuo.song@linux.alibaba.com References: <20250107081735.16159-1-xueshuai@linux.alibaba.com> <20250107081735.16159-3-xueshuai@linux.alibaba.com> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit 在 2025/2/27 20:31, Catalin Marinas 写道: > (going through patches in my inbox) > > On Tue, Jan 07, 2025 at 04:17:34PM +0800, Shuai Xue wrote: >> Part of return value comments for memory_failure() were originally >> documented at the call site. Move those comments to the function >> declaration to improve code readability and to provide developers with > > s/declaration/definition/ Thanks, will fix. > >> immediate access to function usage and return information. >> >> Signed-off-by: Shuai Xue >> Reviewed-by: Jarkko Sakkinen >> Reviewed-by: Jonathan Cameron >> Reviewed-by: Yazen Ghannam >> Reviewed-by: Jane Chu >> --- >> arch/x86/kernel/cpu/mce/core.c | 7 ------- >> mm/memory-failure.c | 10 +++++++--- >> 2 files changed, 7 insertions(+), 10 deletions(-) >> >> diff --git a/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/mce/core.c b/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/mce/core.c >> index 7fb5556a0b53..d1dd7f892514 100644 >> --- a/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/mce/core.c >> +++ b/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/mce/core.c >> @@ -1398,13 +1398,6 @@ static void kill_me_maybe(struct callback_head *cb) >> return; >> } >> >> - /* >> - * -EHWPOISON from memory_failure() means that it already sent SIGBUS >> - * to the current process with the proper error info, >> - * -EOPNOTSUPP means hwpoison_filter() filtered the error event, >> - * >> - * In both cases, no further processing is required. >> - */ >> if (ret == -EHWPOISON || ret == -EOPNOTSUPP) >> return; >> >> diff --git a/mm/memory-failure.c b/mm/memory-failure.c >> index a7b8ccd29b6f..14c316d7d38d 100644 >> --- a/mm/memory-failure.c >> +++ b/mm/memory-failure.c >> @@ -2211,9 +2211,13 @@ static void kill_procs_now(struct page *p, unsigned long pfn, int flags, >> * Must run in process context (e.g. a work queue) with interrupts >> * enabled and no spinlocks held. >> * >> - * Return: 0 for successfully handled the memory error, >> - * -EOPNOTSUPP for hwpoison_filter() filtered the error event, >> - * < 0(except -EOPNOTSUPP) on failure. >> + * Return: >> + * 0 - success, >> + * -ENXIO - memory not managed by the kernel >> + * -EOPNOTSUPP - hwpoison_filter() filtered the error event, >> + * -EHWPOISON - the page was already poisoned, potentially >> + * kill process, >> + * other negative values - failure. >> */ >> int memory_failure(unsigned long pfn, int flags) >> { > > Why not keep the comment in both places? One is about the x86 decisions, > the other is about what memory_failure() can return. > Ok, will keep x86 path. By the way, could arm maintainers help to ack patch 1 and 3 if there is no objection? Thanks. Shuai