Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
Date:   Wed, 9 Sep 2020 14:30:01 +0200
From:   Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>
To:     David Hildenbrand <david@redhat.com>
Cc:     Laurent Dufour <ldufour@linux.ibm.com>,
        Michal Hocko <mhocko@suse.com>, akpm@linux-foundation.org,
        Oscar Salvador <osalvador@suse.de>, rafael@kernel.org,
        nathanl@linux.ibm.com, cheloha@linux.ibm.com,
        stable@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org,
        LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm: don't rely on system state to detect hot-plug
 operations
Message-ID: <20200909123001.GA670250@kroah.com>
References: <5cbd92e1-c00a-4253-0119-c872bfa0f2bc@redhat.com>
 <20200908170835.85440-1-ldufour@linux.ibm.com>
 <20200909074011.GD7348@dhcp22.suse.cz>
 <9faac1ce-c02d-7dbc-f79a-4aaaa5a73d28@linux.ibm.com>
 <20200909090953.GE7348@dhcp22.suse.cz>
 <4cdb54be-1a92-4ba4-6fee-3b415f3468a9@linux.ibm.com>
 <9ad553f2-ebbf-cae5-5570-f60d2c965c41@redhat.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <9ad553f2-ebbf-cae5-5570-f60d2c965c41@redhat.com>
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Wed, Sep 09, 2020 at 11:24:24AM +0200, David Hildenbrand wrote:
> >> I am not sure an enum is going to make the existing situation less
> >> messy. Sure we somehow have to distinguish boot init and runtime hotplug
> >> because they have different constrains. I am arguing that a) we should
> >> have a consistent way to check for those and b) we shouldn't blow up
> >> easily just because sysfs infrastructure has failed to initialize.
> > 
> > For the point a, using the enum allows to know in register_mem_sect_under_node() 
> > if the link operation is due to a hotplug operation or done at boot time.
> > 
> > For the point b, one option would be ignore the link error in the case the link 
> > is already existing, but that BUG_ON() had the benefit to highlight the root issue.
> > 
> 
> WARN_ON_ONCE() would be preferred  - not crash the system but still
> highlight the issue.

Many many systems now run with 'panic on warn' enabled, so that wouldn't
change much :(

If you can warn, you can properly just print an error message and
recover from the problem.

thanks,

greg k-h