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;
From:   David Hildenbrand <david@redhat.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0 (1.0)
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3] mm/memory_hotplug: Fix try_offline_node()
Date:   Sat, 16 Nov 2019 01:12:16 +0100
Message-Id: <E2EAC147-4F23-4B12-9C80-42FE28F03D26@redhat.com>
References: <20191115160833.beda52bc6f1145bc81960ba7@linux-foundation.org>
Cc:     David Hildenbrand <david@redhat.com>, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-mm@kvack.org, Tang Chen <tangchen@cn.fujitsu.com>,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>,
        "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@kernel.org>,
        Keith Busch <keith.busch@intel.com>,
        Jiri Olsa <jolsa@kernel.org>,
        "Peter Zijlstra (Intel)" <peterz@infradead.org>,
        Jani Nikula <jani.nikula@intel.com>,
        Nayna Jain <nayna@linux.ibm.com>,
        Michal Hocko <mhocko@suse.com>,
        Oscar Salvador <osalvador@suse.de>,
        Stephen Rothwell <sfr@canb.auug.org.au>,
        Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@intel.com>,
        Pavel Tatashin <pasha.tatashin@soleen.com>
In-Reply-To: <20191115160833.beda52bc6f1145bc81960ba7@linux-foundation.org>
To:     Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk


> Am 16.11.2019 um 01:08 schrieb Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>:
>=20
> =EF=BB=BFOn Thu, 7 Nov 2019 19:58:45 -0800 Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foun=
dation.org> wrote:
>=20
>> On Thu, 7 Nov 2019 00:14:13 +0100 David Hildenbrand <david@redhat.com> w=
rote:
>>=20
>>>> +    /*
>>>> +     * Especially offline memory blocks might not be spanned by the
>>>> +     * node. They will get spanned by the node once they get onlined.
>>>> +     * However, they link to the node in sysfs and can get onlined la=
ter.
>>>> +     */
>>>> +    rc =3D for_each_memory_block(&nid, check_no_memblock_for_node_cb)=
;
>>>> +    if (rc)
>>>>          return;
>>>> -    }
>>>>=20
>>>>      if (check_cpu_on_node(pgdat))
>>>>          return;
>>>>=20
>>>=20
>>> @Andrew, can you queued this one instead of v1 so we can give this some=
=20
>>> more testing? Thanks!
>>=20
>> Sure.
>>=20
>> We have a tested-by but no reviewed-by or acked-by :(
>>=20
>> Null pointer derefs are unpopular.  Should we cc:stable?
>=20
> <Crickets>
>=20
> I added cc:stable and shall send it upstream unreviewed.

Yes, please cc:stable at as mentioned in the patch comments (below the desc=
ription). Maybe we=E2=80=98ll find somebody last minute to review ... thank=
s!

>=20