From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.3 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,HK_RANDOM_FROM,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE, SPF_PASS,USER_AGENT_SANE_2 autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 15326C433E0 for ; Fri, 26 Feb 2021 02:53:46 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A8EFB64EE2 for ; Fri, 26 Feb 2021 02:53:45 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S229990AbhBZCxj (ORCPT ); Thu, 25 Feb 2021 21:53:39 -0500 Received: from mail.kingsoft.com ([114.255.44.145]:12469 "EHLO mail.kingsoft.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S229596AbhBZCxi (ORCPT ); Thu, 25 Feb 2021 21:53:38 -0500 X-AuditID: 0a580155-713ff700000550c6-27-60385b685238 Received: from mail.kingsoft.com (localhost [10.88.1.32]) (using TLS with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by mail.kingsoft.com (SMG-2-NODE-85) with SMTP id D9.AF.20678.86B58306; Fri, 26 Feb 2021 10:22:32 +0800 (HKT) Received: from alex-virtual-machine (172.16.253.254) by KSBJMAIL2.kingsoft.cn (10.88.1.32) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_GCM_SHA256) id 15.1.1979.3; Fri, 26 Feb 2021 10:52:51 +0800 Date: Fri, 26 Feb 2021 10:52:50 +0800 From: Aili Yao To: Oscar Salvador CC: "HORIGUCHI =?UTF-8?B?TkFPWUE=?=(=?UTF-8?B?5aCA5Y+j44CA55u05Lmf?=)" , "tony.luck@intel.com" , "david@redhat.com" , "akpm@linux-foundation.org" , "bp@alien8.de" , "tglx@linutronix.de" , "mingo@redhat.com" , "hpa@zytor.com" , "x86@kernel.org" , "linux-edac@vger.kernel.org" , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , "linux-mm@kvack.org" , "yangfeng1@kingsoft.com" Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm,hwpoison: return -EBUSY when page already poisoned Message-ID: <20210226105250.3a15e35c@alex-virtual-machine> In-Reply-To: <20210225113930.GA7227@localhost.localdomain> References: <20210224151619.67c29731@alex-virtual-machine> <20210224103105.GA16368@linux> <20210225114329.4e1a41c6@alex-virtual-machine> <20210225112818.GA10141@hori.linux.bs1.fc.nec.co.jp> <20210225113930.GA7227@localhost.localdomain> Organization: kingsoft X-Mailer: Claws Mail 3.17.5 (GTK+ 2.24.30; x86_64-pc-linux-gnu) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Originating-IP: [172.16.253.254] X-ClientProxiedBy: KSBJMAIL1.kingsoft.cn (10.88.1.31) To KSBJMAIL2.kingsoft.cn (10.88.1.32) X-Brightmail-Tracker: H4sIAAAAAAAAA+NgFprLIsWRmVeSWpSXmKPExsXCFcGooJsRbZFg8LOB3WLO+jVsFp83/GOz +Lr+F7PFtI3iFrcPrGG0uLxrDpvFvTX/WS0uHVjAZHGx8QCjxZlpRRabN01ltnhz4R6LxY8N j1kdeD2+t/axeCze85LJY9OqTjaPTZ8msXu8O3eO3ePEjN8sHi+ubmTxeL/vKpvH5tPVHp83 yXmcaPnCGsAdxWWTkpqTWZZapG+XwJVx4OVS1oJHLBUnjjUwNTDeYu5i5OSQEDCROLLsAmMX IxeHkMB0JomTb44wQTivGCX6mw6ygVSxCKhK9O/bwQRiswHZu+7NYgWxRQTUJKa9amQHaWAW 6GaVOLtxPTtIQljAS+LL/bWMIDavgJXE/OYmFhCbE8hetX46K8SGz4wSMxf0gW3gFxCT6L3y nwniJnuJti2LoJoFJU7OfALWzCygI3Fi1TFmCFteYvvbOWC2kICixOElv9ghepUkjnTPYIOw YyWWzXvFOoFReBaSUbOQjJqFZNQCRuZVjCzFuelGmxghMRi6g3FG00e9Q4xMHIyHGCU4mJVE eDf/M00Q4k1JrKxKLcqPLyrNSS0+xCjNwaIkzjt1q0mCkEB6YklqdmpqQWoRTJaJg1OqgSnt sMaDi3tubduy4f8LxWq2F2/2LZ2yISE6PyXxzRfzziUC9a8stfjOGu9t2s7k/+Hl4rlib7xP fFlSK98QJO/kF7Q1/MLq/gjBfbExP+RNynqaspc1HpAp40mx87pl3ms6a/cfT+57Pj76GgJL w4uL05y8vuZUX3ykzFeRNkH2lGz933c/zPweuU50rGDnWzpZcu3OptbuPIHpT3hftxtp/sri Ws51Pcdk7blFH0qv/XfWdhV26PaX4nzuM2/tv7+7OGr+WL656rN8dunCCZ89flw2ky97U/3Y XeNyaRvXd8GL8gzmK085ye/Sty6rzfR3cuq6pbtzgcuTe7vUttUt3GHpsq79WnnwgpBJQUos xRmJhlrMRcWJADSJYpIwAwAA Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Hi naoya,Oscar,david: > > > We could use some negative value (error code) to report the reported case, > > then as you mentioned above, some callers need change to handle the > > new case, and the same is true if you use some positive value. > > My preference is -EHWPOISON, but other options are fine if justified well. > > -EHWPOISON seems like a good fit. > I am OK with the -EHWPOISON error code, But I have one doubt here: When we return this -EHWPOISON error code, Does this means we have to add a new error code to error-base.h or errno.h? Is this easy realized? Thanks! Aili Yao