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:   Tue, 14 Jan 2020 10:50:57 +0100
From:   Michal Hocko <mhocko@kernel.org>
To:     Tianyu Lan <Tianyu.Lan@microsoft.com>
Cc:     David Hildenbrand <david@redhat.com>,
        "lantianyu1986@gmail.com" <lantianyu1986@gmail.com>,
        KY Srinivasan <kys@microsoft.com>,
        Haiyang Zhang <haiyangz@microsoft.com>,
        Stephen Hemminger <sthemmin@microsoft.com>,
        "sashal@kernel.org" <sashal@kernel.org>,
        "akpm@linux-foundation.org" <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
        Michael Kelley <mikelley@microsoft.com>,
        "linux-hyperv@vger.kernel.org" <linux-hyperv@vger.kernel.org>,
        "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        "linux-mm@kvack.org" <linux-mm@kvack.org>,
        vkuznets <vkuznets@redhat.com>,
        "eric.devolder@oracle.com" <eric.devolder@oracle.com>,
        "vbabka@suse.cz" <vbabka@suse.cz>,
        "osalvador@suse.de" <osalvador@suse.de>,
        Pasha Tatashin <Pavel.Tatashin@microsoft.com>,
        "rppt@linux.ibm.com" <rppt@linux.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: [EXTERNAL] Re: [RFC PATCH V2 2/10] mm: expose
 is_mem_section_removable() symbol
Message-ID: <20200114095057.GK19428@dhcp22.suse.cz>
References: <20200107130950.2983-1-Tianyu.Lan@microsoft.com>
 <20200107130950.2983-3-Tianyu.Lan@microsoft.com>
 <20200107133623.GJ32178@dhcp22.suse.cz>
 <99a6db0c-6d73-d982-58b3-7a0172748ae4@redhat.com>
 <SG2P153MB0349F85FB0C1C02F55391F6D92350@SG2P153MB0349.APCP153.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <SG2P153MB0349F85FB0C1C02F55391F6D92350@SG2P153MB0349.APCP153.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.12.2 (2019-09-21)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Mon 13-01-20 14:49:38, Tianyu Lan wrote:
> Hi David & Michal:
> 	Thanks for your review. Some memory blocks are not suitable for hot-plug.
> If not check memory block's removable, offline_pages() will report some failure error
> e.g, "failed due to memory holes" and  "failure to isolate range". I think the check maybe
> added into offline_and_remove_memory()? This may help to not create/expose a new
> interface to do such check in module.

Why is a log message a problem in the first place. The operation has
failed afterall. Does the driver try to offline an arbitrary memory?
Could you describe your usecase in more details please?
-- 
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs