Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
Date:   Wed, 15 Aug 2018 15:43:34 -0700
From:   Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
To:     Naoya Horiguchi <n-horiguchi@ah.jp.nec.com>
Cc:     linux-mm@kvack.org, Michal Hocko <mhocko@kernel.org>,
        xishi.qiuxishi@alibaba-inc.com, zy.zhengyi@alibaba-inc.com,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        Mike Kravetz <mike.kravetz@oracle.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 0/2] mm: soft-offline: fix race against page
 allocation
Message-Id: <20180815154334.f3eecd1029a153421631413a@linux-foundation.org>
In-Reply-To: <1531805552-19547-1-git-send-email-n-horiguchi@ah.jp.nec.com>
References: <1531805552-19547-1-git-send-email-n-horiguchi@ah.jp.nec.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Tue, 17 Jul 2018 14:32:30 +0900 Naoya Horiguchi <n-horiguchi@ah.jp.nec.com> wrote:

> I've updated the patchset based on feedbacks:
> 
> - updated comments (from Andrew),
> - moved calling set_hwpoison_free_buddy_page() from mm/migrate.c to mm/memory-failure.c,
>   which is necessary to check the return code of set_hwpoison_free_buddy_page(),
> - lkp bot reported a build error when only 1/2 is applied.
> 
>   >    mm/memory-failure.c: In function 'soft_offline_huge_page':
>   > >> mm/memory-failure.c:1610:8: error: implicit declaration of function
>   > 'set_hwpoison_free_buddy_page'; did you mean 'is_free_buddy_page'?
>   > [-Werror=implicit-function-declaration]
>   >        if (set_hwpoison_free_buddy_page(page))
>   >            ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>   >            is_free_buddy_page
>   >    cc1: some warnings being treated as errors
> 
>   set_hwpoison_free_buddy_page() is defined in 2/2, so we can't use it
>   in 1/2. Simply doing s/set_hwpoison_free_buddy_page/!TestSetPageHWPoison/
>   will fix this.
> 
> v1: https://lkml.org/lkml/2018/7/12/968
> 

Quite a bit of discussion on these two, but no actual acks or
review-by's?