On Fri, Jan 25, 2019 at 3:10 PM Dave Hansen <dave.han...@intel.com> wrote: > > On 1/25/19 1:02 PM, Bjorn Helgaas wrote: > >> @@ -453,7 +453,7 @@ int walk_system_ram_range(unsigned long > >> unsigned long flags; > >> struct resource res; > >> unsigned long pfn, end_pfn; > >> - int ret = -1; > >> + int ret = -EINVAL; > > Can you either make a similar change to the powerpc version of > > walk_system_ram_range() in arch/powerpc/mm/mem.c or explain why it's > > not needed? It *seems* like we'd want both versions of > > walk_system_ram_range() to behave similarly in this respect. > > Sure. A quick grep shows powerpc being the only other implementation. > I'll just add this hunk: > > > diff -puN > > arch/powerpc/mm/mem.c~memory-hotplug-walk_system_ram_range-returns-neg-1 > > arch/powerpc/mm/mem.c > > --- > > a/arch/powerpc/mm/mem.c~memory-hotplug-walk_system_ram_range-returns-neg-1 > > 2019-01-25 12:57:00.000004446 -0800 > > +++ b/arch/powerpc/mm/mem.c 2019-01-25 12:58:13.215004263 -0800 > > @@ -188,7 +188,7 @@ walk_system_ram_range(unsigned long star > > struct memblock_region *reg; > > unsigned long end_pfn = start_pfn + nr_pages; > > unsigned long tstart, tend; > > - int ret = -1; > > + int ret = -EINVAL; > > I'll also dust off the ol' cross-compiler and make sure I didn't > fat-finger anything.
Sounds good. Then add my Reviewed-by: Bjorn Helgaas <bhelg...@google.com>
