[PATCH v2 0/6] mm/hugetlb: Fix commandline parsing behavior for invalid hugepagesize

[PATCH v2 0/6] mm/hugetlb: Fix commandline parsing behavior for invalid hugepagesize

[Vaishali Thakkar]

Current code fails to ignore the 'hugepages=' parameters when unsupported
hugepagesize is specified. With this patchset, introduce new architecture
independent routine hugetlb_bad_size to handle such command line options.
And then call it in architecture specific code.

Changes since v1:
	- Separated different architecture specific changes in different
	  patches
	- CC'ed all arch maintainers

Vaishali Thakkar (6):
  mm/hugetlb: Introduce hugetlb_bad_size
  arm64: mm: Use hugetlb_bad_size
  metag: mm: Use hugetlb_bad_size
  powerpc: mm: Use hugetlb_bad_size
  tile: mm: Use hugetlb_bad_size
  x86: mm: Use hugetlb_bad_size

 arch/arm64/mm/hugetlbpage.c   |  1 +
 arch/metag/mm/hugetlbpage.c   |  1 +
 arch/powerpc/mm/hugetlbpage.c |  6 ++++--
 arch/tile/mm/hugetlbpage.c    |  7 ++++++-
 arch/x86/mm/hugetlbpage.c     |  1 +
 include/linux/hugetlb.h       |  1 +
 mm/hugetlb.c                  | 14 +++++++++++++-
 7 files changed, 27 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)

-- 
2.1.4

Re: [PATCH v2 0/6] mm/hugetlb: Fix commandline parsing behavior for invalid hugepagesize

[Michal Hocko]

On Wed 23-03-16 17:37:18, Vaishali Thakkar wrote:
> Current code fails to ignore the 'hugepages=' parameters when unsupported
> hugepagesize is specified. With this patchset, introduce new architecture
> independent routine hugetlb_bad_size to handle such command line options.
> And then call it in architecture specific code.
> 
> Changes since v1:
> 	- Separated different architecture specific changes in different
> 	  patches
> 	- CC'ed all arch maintainers

The hugetlb parameters parsing is a bit mess but this at least makes it
behave more consistently. Feel free to add to all patches
Acked-by: Michal Hocko <mhocko@suse.com>

On a side note. I have received patches with broken threading - the
follow up patches are not in the single thread under this cover email.
I thought this was the default behavior of git send-email but maybe your
(older) version doesn't do that. --thread option would enforce that
(with --no-chain-reply-to) or you can set it up in the git config. IMHO
it is always better to have the patchset in the single email thread.

-- 
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs

Re: [PATCH v2 0/6] mm/hugetlb: Fix commandline parsing behavior for invalid hugepagesize

[Vaishali Thakkar]

On Wednesday 23 March 2016 07:00 PM, Michal Hocko wrote:
> On Wed 23-03-16 17:37:18, Vaishali Thakkar wrote:
>> Current code fails to ignore the 'hugepages=' parameters when unsupported
>> hugepagesize is specified. With this patchset, introduce new architecture
>> independent routine hugetlb_bad_size to handle such command line options.
>> And then call it in architecture specific code.
>>
>> Changes since v1:
>> 	- Separated different architecture specific changes in different
>> 	  patches
>> 	- CC'ed all arch maintainers
> The hugetlb parameters parsing is a bit mess but this at least makes it
> behave more consistently. Feel free to add to all patches
> Acked-by: Michal Hocko <mhocko@suse.com>
>
> On a side note. I have received patches with broken threading - the
> follow up patches are not in the single thread under this cover email.
> I thought this was the default behavior of git send-email but maybe your
> (older) version doesn't do that. --thread option would enforce that
> (with --no-chain-reply-to) or you can set it up in the git config. IMHO
> it is always better to have the patchset in the single email thread.
>
Yes, now I have set up my git config for that. Hopefully, things will
work properly - patchset in a single thread from the next time.

Thanks.

-- 
Vaishali