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=-0.8 required=3.0 tests=DKIMWL_WL_HIGH,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE, SPF_PASS 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 93E2DFA372C for ; Fri, 8 Nov 2019 03:58:49 +0000 (UTC) Received: from kanga.kvack.org (kanga.kvack.org [205.233.56.17]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 508D121882 for ; Fri, 8 Nov 2019 03:58:49 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.b="M/b0o7NC" DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org 508D121882 Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=linux-foundation.org Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) id CE7BD6B0005; Thu, 7 Nov 2019 22:58:48 -0500 (EST) Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix, from userid 40) id C97EC6B0006; Thu, 7 Nov 2019 22:58:48 -0500 (EST) X-Delivered-To: int-list-linux-mm@kvack.org Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix, from userid 63042) id BAF936B0007; Thu, 7 Nov 2019 22:58:48 -0500 (EST) X-Delivered-To: linux-mm@kvack.org Received: from forelay.hostedemail.com (smtprelay0127.hostedemail.com [216.40.44.127]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A4C346B0005 for ; Thu, 7 Nov 2019 22:58:48 -0500 (EST) Received: from smtpin02.hostedemail.com (10.5.19.251.rfc1918.com [10.5.19.251]) by forelay02.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 56DBF4853 for ; Fri, 8 Nov 2019 03:58:48 +0000 (UTC) X-FDA: 76131753936.02.event42_4cd58f57fd852 X-HE-Tag: event42_4cd58f57fd852 X-Filterd-Recvd-Size: 2784 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by imf11.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP for ; Fri, 8 Nov 2019 03:58:47 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost.localdomain (c-73-231-172-41.hsd1.ca.comcast.net [73.231.172.41]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 553C920679; Fri, 8 Nov 2019 03:58:46 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=kernel.org; s=default; t=1573185526; bh=/4FwpTjEiM19GdBWykbZ0R2dKe1l5qiWiqL0ug6a+vw=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:From; b=M/b0o7NC4sH1dPlab3zzKCy1u+ul8uhobI/pKFit+sNsWpJ8JyaP0iQI7MO/qKbfy 94h0sRD2SAIdhdawso330wFvSx0FWS7qJhTX30FOkJkY9OmWpgiZrKpyF40tLLXcD3 kBFRgQvl1bizzsJjfMl1DlW3ReCHgY2DDWjmg8PA= Date: Thu, 7 Nov 2019 19:58:45 -0800 From: Andrew Morton To: David Hildenbrand Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org, Tang Chen , Greg Kroah-Hartman , "Rafael J. Wysocki" , Keith Busch , Jiri Olsa , "Peter Zijlstra (Intel)" , Jani Nikula , Nayna Jain , Michal Hocko , Oscar Salvador , Stephen Rothwell , Dan Williams , Pavel Tatashin Subject: Re: [PATCH v3] mm/memory_hotplug: Fix try_offline_node() Message-Id: <20191107195845.b0b3921ea146a60d042a8f64@linux-foundation.org> In-Reply-To: <51bdb854-a60e-d076-5dde-38481bf4a4b1@redhat.com> References: <20191102120221.7553-1-david@redhat.com> <51bdb854-a60e-d076-5dde-38481bf4a4b1@redhat.com> X-Mailer: Sylpheed 3.5.1 (GTK+ 2.24.31; x86_64-pc-linux-gnu) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Bogosity: Ham, tests=bogofilter, spamicity=0.000000, version=1.2.4 Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Precedence: bulk X-Loop: owner-majordomo@kvack.org List-ID: On Thu, 7 Nov 2019 00:14:13 +0100 David Hildenbrand wrote: > > + /* > > + * Especially offline memory blocks might not be spanned by the > > + * node. They will get spanned by the node once they get onlined. > > + * However, they link to the node in sysfs and can get onlined later. > > + */ > > + rc = for_each_memory_block(&nid, check_no_memblock_for_node_cb); > > + if (rc) > > return; > > - } > > > > if (check_cpu_on_node(pgdat)) > > return; > > > > @Andrew, can you queued this one instead of v1 so we can give this some > more testing? Thanks! Sure. We have a tested-by but no reviewed-by or acked-by :( Null pointer derefs are unpopular. Should we cc:stable?