WARNING - OLD ARCHIVES

This is an archived copy of the Xen.org mailing list, which we have preserved to ensure that existing links to archives are not broken. The live archive, which contains the latest emails, can be found at http://lists.xen.org/
   
 
 
Xen 
 
Home Products Support Community News
 
   
 

xen-devel

[Xen-devel] Re: [PATCH V2 2/2] mm: Extend memory hotplug API to allow me

On Tue, May 03, 2011 at 09:25:52AM -0700, Dave Hansen wrote:
> On Mon, 2011-05-02 at 23:49 +0200, Daniel Kiper wrote:
> > +int register_online_page_callback(online_page_callback_t callback)
> > +{
> > +       int rc = -EPERM;
> > +
> > +       lock_memory_hotplug();
> > +
> > +       if (online_page_callback == generic_online_page) {
> > +               online_page_callback = callback;
> > +               rc = 0;
> > +       }
> > +
> > +       unlock_memory_hotplug();
> > +
> > +       return rc;
> > +}
> > +EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(register_online_page_callback);
> 
> -EPERM is a bit uninformative here.  How about -EEXIST, plus a printk?

EEXIST means File exists (POSIX.1). It could be misleading. That is why
I decided to use EPERM. I could not find any better choice. I think another
choice is EINVAL (not the best one in my opinion). Additionally, I am not
sure it should have printk. I think it is role of caller to notify (or not)
about possible errors.

> I also don't seen the real use behind having a "register" that can only
> take a single callback.  At worst, it should be
> "set_online_page_callback()" so it's more apparent that there can only
> be one of these.

OK.

> > +int unregister_online_page_callback(online_page_callback_t callback)
> > +{
> > +       int rc = -EPERM;
> > +
> > +       lock_memory_hotplug();
> > +
> > +       if (online_page_callback == callback) {
> > +               online_page_callback = generic_online_page;
> > +               rc = 0;
> > +       }
> > +
> > +       unlock_memory_hotplug();
> > +
> > +       return rc;
> > +}
> > +EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(unregister_online_page_callback); 
> 
> Again, -EPERM is a bad code here. -EEXIST, perhaps?  It also deserves a
> WARN_ON() or a printk on failure here.  

Please look above.

> Your changelog doesn't mention, but what ever happened to doing
> something dirt-simple like this?  I have a short memory.

Andrew Morton complained about (ab)use of notifiers. He suggested
to use callback machanism (I could not find any better solution
in Linux Kernel). He convinced me.

Daniel

_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>