From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id F3B53C433EF for ; Tue, 9 Nov 2021 02:08:57 +0000 (UTC) Received: from lists.ozlabs.org (lists.ozlabs.org [112.213.38.117]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 03FB861178 for ; Tue, 9 Nov 2021 02:08:56 +0000 (UTC) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.4.1 mail.kernel.org 03FB861178 Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=fail (p=none dis=none) header.from=linux.ibm.com Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=lists.ozlabs.org Received: from boromir.ozlabs.org (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by lists.ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4HpBHC3YT9z2ywT for ; Tue, 9 Nov 2021 13:08:55 +1100 (AEDT) Authentication-Results: lists.ozlabs.org; dkim=fail reason="signature verification failed" (2048-bit key; unprotected) header.d=ibm.com header.i=@ibm.com header.a=rsa-sha256 header.s=pp1 header.b=NwNvsoJn; dkim-atps=neutral Authentication-Results: lists.ozlabs.org; spf=pass (sender SPF authorized) smtp.mailfrom=linux.ibm.com (client-ip=148.163.156.1; helo=mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com; envelope-from=nathanl@linux.ibm.com; receiver=) Authentication-Results: lists.ozlabs.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key; unprotected) header.d=ibm.com header.i=@ibm.com header.a=rsa-sha256 header.s=pp1 header.b=NwNvsoJn; dkim-atps=neutral Received: from mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com (mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com [148.163.156.1]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by lists.ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4HpBGP6pqZz2xD4 for ; Tue, 9 Nov 2021 13:08:13 +1100 (AEDT) Received: from pps.filterd (m0098394.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com (8.16.1.2/8.16.1.2) with SMTP id 1A8MNUwb013719; Tue, 9 Nov 2021 02:08:02 GMT DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=ibm.com; h=from : to : cc : subject : in-reply-to : references : date : message-id : mime-version : content-type; s=pp1; bh=xfrQmRyHkeOj6Fea4V2SKM536tS86ylqfHe3yf+yiVs=; b=NwNvsoJnB5TOs/VLfXEmEydURUt6qvzbXpQDvTyRm8Io0pypjsAAxLwmdE57fzBb1FWb lqPFoxXm/eikm/7Dz0GpXRkNTK+ur2hUTqSij8fVoFaM2SvpV/SjgbhqenczqalD8P7s WGaloZvuF5rZL4781uP/XyWQwRB+R/yN8f3cbHBlbN0eWXdYAKoqFmu2+k9lykqk8mpL m4i7nsvEdPWVObLYGuu6v+DNB8cGM7k3Fk4SX5uDBGlaQbn6EYkhwlxjJbbxIdNl2AJH zZOFdowMFuZnEldn2g4s/N4bYRJzuejfho7UWkObH4g72dvRp/eNCOVSPknCxrtUwQJb SA== Received: from pps.reinject (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com with ESMTP id 3c7cn6v0yx-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Tue, 09 Nov 2021 02:08:01 +0000 Received: from m0098394.ppops.net (m0098394.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by pps.reinject (8.16.0.43/8.16.0.43) with SMTP id 1A9281XU025940; Tue, 9 Nov 2021 02:08:01 GMT Received: from ppma03wdc.us.ibm.com (ba.79.3fa9.ip4.static.sl-reverse.com [169.63.121.186]) by mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com with ESMTP id 3c7cn6v0yf-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Tue, 09 Nov 2021 02:08:01 +0000 Received: from pps.filterd (ppma03wdc.us.ibm.com [127.0.0.1]) by ppma03wdc.us.ibm.com (8.16.1.2/8.16.1.2) with SMTP id 1A91uvgR021709; Tue, 9 Nov 2021 02:07:59 GMT Received: from b01cxnp22034.gho.pok.ibm.com (b01cxnp22034.gho.pok.ibm.com [9.57.198.24]) by ppma03wdc.us.ibm.com with ESMTP id 3c5hbajtym-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Tue, 09 Nov 2021 02:07:59 +0000 Received: from b01ledav006.gho.pok.ibm.com (b01ledav006.gho.pok.ibm.com [9.57.199.111]) by b01cxnp22034.gho.pok.ibm.com (8.14.9/8.14.9/NCO v10.0) with ESMTP id 1A927xpM46072296 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=OK); Tue, 9 Nov 2021 02:07:59 GMT Received: from b01ledav006.gho.pok.ibm.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by IMSVA (Postfix) with ESMTP id E64DCAC067; Tue, 9 Nov 2021 02:07:58 +0000 (GMT) Received: from b01ledav006.gho.pok.ibm.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by IMSVA (Postfix) with ESMTP id B0323AC05F; Tue, 9 Nov 2021 02:07:58 +0000 (GMT) Received: from localhost (unknown [9.211.44.202]) by b01ledav006.gho.pok.ibm.com (Postfix) with ESMTP; Tue, 9 Nov 2021 02:07:58 +0000 (GMT) From: Nathan Lynch To: Waiman Long , Nicholas Piggin , "Aneesh Kumar K.V" , Benjamin Herrenschmidt , Daniel Henrique Barboza , Michael Ellerman , Paul Mackerras Subject: Re: [PATCH] powerpc/pseries/cpuhp: Use alloc_cpumask_var() in pseries_cpu_hotplug_init() In-Reply-To: References: <20211108164751.65565-1-longman@redhat.com> <87y25ym96i.fsf@mpe.ellerman.id.au> <1636421918.tc1hk6vx8h.astroid@bobo.none> Date: Mon, 08 Nov 2021 20:07:58 -0600 Message-ID: <871r3qjd35.fsf@linux.ibm.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-TM-AS-GCONF: 00 X-Proofpoint-ORIG-GUID: 8xMAC84lTy769LAByALRxfY-bdnp-5Be X-Proofpoint-GUID: -jvDEFVFVi4zRUqIKBvQLWvh3S2DWwcb X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=baseguard engine=ICAP:2.0.205,Aquarius:18.0.790,Hydra:6.0.425,FMLib:17.0.607.475 definitions=2021-11-08_07,2021-11-08_02,2020-04-07_01 X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=outbound_notspam policy=outbound score=0 impostorscore=0 spamscore=0 mlxscore=0 adultscore=0 mlxlogscore=999 clxscore=1015 malwarescore=0 lowpriorityscore=0 priorityscore=1501 bulkscore=0 phishscore=0 suspectscore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=8.12.0-2110150000 definitions=main-2111090007 X-BeenThere: linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Linux on PowerPC Developers Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Cc: linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org, Laurent Dufour , Zhang Xiaoxu , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Errors-To: linuxppc-dev-bounces+linuxppc-dev=archiver.kernel.org@lists.ozlabs.org Sender: "Linuxppc-dev" Waiman Long writes: > On 11/8/21 20:46, Nicholas Piggin wrote: >> Differences between the two patches are error checking - no big deal but >> we should just do it. And GFP_NOWAIT - is this required here? > > As I have replied in another thread, I added it because it was used in > memblock_alloc_internal(). >From the pseries code's point of view, that's an incidental property of the misuse detection branch in memblock_alloc_internal() -- I'd speculate to make it robust for calls from atomic context. GFP_NOWAIT is not needed here.