From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from invmail4.hynix.com (exvmail4.skhynix.com [166.125.252.92]) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 55FE31E98EA; Fri, 2 May 2025 07:01:29 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=166.125.252.92 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1746169297; cv=none; b=Gy1yhCvZ9H+mpx0e/Z1BjZF2k9iyj2YdTeq8b+IfVIR52xVdc3aVlAqxVq7TkirxUqQVAEx1G3jCp4tTnEym7Px36Ld1+Zj2r7TYeZfZdKxMBmDd0/4EwLUB1Er1xcGZidZtBHUDbVXHbbuZdRZ2iu9G/dqR13sRB5XkJwXdWZA= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1746169297; c=relaxed/simple; bh=GvDDf81Wz8kmvhvd60Ue0MYrQ9Kyf2n/GxjwQ2yjYdQ=; h=Message-ID:Date:MIME-Version:Cc:Subject:To:References:From: In-Reply-To:Content-Type; b=GUHQ2GC5h1ZYjgfxxCF3R1FoYMNn4nXIfUuU/rwTSW+KGcms0LoM8o22sSGT5xnVHCsHs4lhAcHcrwwpKae77NY+TKeVgwvcbc0yvk8lF3PqczUlRS5w8pUmngIPN7TCgpGatV2B2HPQnGWDpbJWi+4LaFdBv6YDMPON6Mk8FEU= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=sk.com; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=sk.com; arc=none smtp.client-ip=166.125.252.92 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=sk.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=sk.com X-AuditID: a67dfc5b-669ff7000002311f-81-68146a3d5fcd Message-ID: <9837bbe0-d494-43bb-8e92-8cbf47a32b68@sk.com> Date: Fri, 2 May 2025 15:46:21 +0900 Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Cc: kernel_team@skhynix.com, Andrew Morton , Dan Williams , Joshua Hahn , Gregory Price , linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, kernel-janitors@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH next] mm/mempolicy: Fix error code in sysfs_wi_node_add() To: Dan Carpenter , Rakie Kim References: Content-Language: ko From: Honggyu Kim In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Brightmail-Tracker: H4sIAAAAAAAAA+NgFvrHLMWRmVeSWpSXmKPExsXC9ZZnoa5tlkiGwYZ+a4s569ewWXyY18pu MX3qBUaLn3ePs1sc3zqP3WLrLWmLy7vmsFncW/Of1YHDY+esu+we3W2X2T0W73nJ5LHp0yR2 jzvX9rB5nJjxm8Xj8ya5APYoLpuU1JzMstQifbsErox3r30LrvFUbFvVydzA+J+zi5GTQ0LA ROL+0b2MMPaPy6vYQGxeAUuJPZvvMYHYLAIqEj2rl7BDxAUlTs58wgJiiwrIS9y/NQMozsXB LDCFSWJT429mkISwgK/E4v/fWEFsEQEvidmvl4ItEBLQl3i1bCKYzSwgIjG7sw2snk1ATeLK y0lgyzgFDCTetuxlhqgxk+ja2gVVLy+x/e0cZpBlEgK32SQe/5jDCnG1pMTBFTdYJjAKzkJy 4CwkO2YhmTULyawFjCyrGIUy88pyEzNzTPQyKvMyK/SS83M3MQJjZVntn+gdjJ8uBB9iFOBg VOLhDSgQzhBiTSwrrsw9xCjBwawkwhtjABTiTUmsrEotyo8vKs1JLT7EKM3BoiTOa/StPEVI ID2xJDU7NbUgtQgmy8TBKdXAGHr/zxuz5utfvvop73I9tVFv2rtbpSWyBmdSlGa7lq2ODs3y XCdTJduQOVmqcsqbGQk7df64LKt3srt3mF92zfbd3pfK+rzZDt9eGKq78seuGXJlU62d/HKj Wx1O3vep50sX+JsiViH7t4jLRL4u1HxHzOPDHFdNKjfP3L/88dws7ZboK75/lFiKMxINtZiL ihMBdBeWM5ECAAA= X-Brightmail-Tracker: H4sIAAAAAAAAA+NgFnrHLMWRmVeSWpSXmKPExsXCNUNLT9c2SyTDYOdcfYs569ewWXyY18pu MX3qBUaLn3ePs1sc3zqP3WLrLWmLw3NPslpc3jWHzeLemv+sFoeuPWd14PLYOesuu0d322V2 j8V7XjJ5bPo0id3jzrU9bB4nZvxm8fh228Nj8YsPTB6fN8kFcEZx2aSk5mSWpRbp2yVwZbx7 7Vtwjadi26pO5gbG/5xdjJwcEgImEj8ur2IDsXkFLCX2bL7HBGKzCKhI9Kxewg4RF5Q4OfMJ C4gtKiAvcf/WDKA4FwezwBQmiU2Nv5lBEsICvhKL/39jBbFFBLwkZr9eyghiCwnoS7xaNhHM ZhYQkZjd2QZWzyagJnHl5SSwZZwCBhJvW/YyQ9SYSXRt7YKql5fY/nYO8wRGvllI7piFZNQs JC2zkLQsYGRZxSiSmVeWm5iZY6pXnJ1RmZdZoZecn7uJERgLy2r/TNzB+OWy+yFGAQ5GJR7e gALhDCHWxLLiytxDjBIczEoivDEGQCHelMTKqtSi/Pii0pzU4kOM0hwsSuK8XuGpCUIC6Ykl qdmpqQWpRTBZJg5OqQbGONVJfNE1s/oEMz2mTyr4/P/67xv2R/huHfv8qYFx88ba6Ekyu6fn zJnq+zPwDu8FBTs52yLp1P6u5sjV/nfSguq3L1i/48unj6HxEuw2uScn9GfeETi/hGnNQw82 deM0hRnbWv5dc2PPc7s4OVpu4/vGadUa/5LTipJl/c/2di3wW7i1oadRiaU4I9FQi7moOBEA BCkJ+YECAAA= X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected Hi Dan, On 4/23/2025 5:24 PM, Dan Carpenter wrote: > Return -EEXIST if the node already exists. Don't return success. > > Fixes: 1bf270ac1b0a ("mm/mempolicy: support memory hotplug in weighted interleave") > Signed-off-by: Dan Carpenter > --- > Potentially returning success was intentional? This is from static > analysis and I can't be totally sure. > > mm/mempolicy.c | 3 ++- > 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) > > diff --git a/mm/mempolicy.c b/mm/mempolicy.c > index f43951668c41..0538a994440a 100644 > --- a/mm/mempolicy.c > +++ b/mm/mempolicy.c > @@ -3539,7 +3539,7 @@ static const struct kobj_type wi_ktype = { > > static int sysfs_wi_node_add(int nid) > { > - int ret = 0; > + int ret; > char *name; > struct iw_node_attr *new_attr; > > @@ -3569,6 +3569,7 @@ static int sysfs_wi_node_add(int nid) > if (wi_group->nattrs[nid]) { > mutex_unlock(&wi_group->kobj_lock); > pr_info("node%d already exists\n", nid); > + ret = -EEXIST; Returning -EEXIST here looks good to me, but could you remove the above pr_info as well? I mean the following change is needed. - pr_info("node%d already exists\n", nid) + ret = -EEXIST; We don't need the above pr_info here because we delegate a warning message to its caller wi_node_notifier(). This can close another warning report below. https://lore.kernel.org/all/202505020458.yLHRAaW9-lkp@intel.com If you apply my suggestion then please add Reviewed-by: Honggyu Kim Thanks, Honggyu > goto out; > } >