From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: John Hubbard Subject: Re: [PATCH] move_pages.2: not return ENOENT if the page are already on the target nodes Date: Fri, 6 Dec 2019 00:25:53 -0800 Message-ID: <0dc96e40-5f2b-a2fe-6e5f-b6f3d5e9ebde@nvidia.com> References: <1575596090-115377-1-git-send-email-yang.shi@linux.alibaba.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <1575596090-115377-1-git-send-email-yang.shi@linux.alibaba.com> Content-Language: en-US Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Yang Shi , mtk.manpages@gmail.com, cl@linux.com, mhocko@suse.com, cai@lca.pw, akpm@linux-foundation.org Cc: linux-man@vger.kernel.org, linux-api@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-api@vger.kernel.org On 12/5/19 5:34 PM, Yang Shi wrote: > Since commit e78bbfa82624 ("mm: stop returning -ENOENT > from sys_move_pages() if nothing got migrated"), move_pages doesn't > return -ENOENT anymore if the pages are already on the target nodes, but > this change is never reflected in manpage. > > Cc: Michael Kerrisk > Cc: Christoph Lameter > Cc: John Hubbard > Cc: Michal Hocko > Cc: Qian Cai > Signed-off-by: Yang Shi > --- > man2/move_pages.2 | 5 ++--- > 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/man2/move_pages.2 b/man2/move_pages.2 > index 2d96468..2a2f3cd 100644 > --- a/man2/move_pages.2 > +++ b/man2/move_pages.2 > @@ -192,9 +192,8 @@ was specified or an attempt was made to migrate pages of a kernel thread. > One of the target nodes is not online. > .TP > .B ENOENT > -No pages were found that require moving. > -All pages are either already > -on the target node, not present, had an invalid address or could not be > +No pages were found. > +All pages are either not present, had an invalid address or could not be > moved because they were mapped by multiple processes. > .TP > .B EPERM > whoa, hold on. If I'm reading through the various error paths correctly, then this code is *never* going to return ENOENT for the whole function. It can fill in that value per-page, in the status array, but that's all. Did I get that right? If so, we need to redo this part of the man page. thanks, -- John Hubbard NVIDIA