Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: [PATCH] move_pages.2: not return ENOENT if the page are already on the target nodes | From | Yang Shi <> | Date | Mon, 30 Dec 2019 18:49:29 -0800 |
| |
On 12/17/19 11:36 PM, John Hubbard wrote: > On 12/13/19 5:55 PM, Michael Kerrisk (man-pages) wrote: > ... >>>> 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? >>> >>> Nice catch. Yes, you are right. >>> >>>> >>>> If so, we need to redo this part of the man page. >>> >>> Yes. >> >> So where are things at with this? Is an improved man-pages >> patch on the way, or is some other action (on the API) planned? >> > > I was waiting to see if Yang was going to respond...anyway, I think > we're looking at approximately this sort of change: >
Hi John,
I apologize for the delay, just came back from vacation. Thanks for taking care of the patch.
> diff --git a/man2/move_pages.2 b/man2/move_pages.2 > index 2d96468fa..1bf1053f2 100644 > --- a/man2/move_pages.2 > +++ b/man2/move_pages.2 > @@ -191,12 +191,6 @@ was specified or an attempt was made to migrate > pages of a kernel thread. > .B ENODEV > 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 > -moved because they were mapped by multiple processes. > -.TP > .B EPERM > The caller specified > .B MPOL_MF_MOVE_ALL > > ...But I'm not sure if we should change the implementation, instead, so > that it *can* return ENOENT. That's the main question to resolve before > creating any more patches, I think. > > In addition, Michal mentioned that the page states in the status array > also > need updated documentation. > > > thanks,
| |