On Mon, 2023-11-27 at 10:13 -0700, Dave Jiang wrote:
> On 11/27/23 02:34, Cao, Quanquan/曹 全全 wrote:
> >
> >
> > 1.Assuming the user hasn't executed the 'cxl disable-region
> > region0' command and directly runs 'cxl destroy-region region0 -f',
> > using the 'disable_region(region)' function to first take the
> > region offline and then disable it might be more user-friendly.
> > 2.If the user executes the 'cxl disable-region region0' command but
> > fails to take it offline successfully, then runs 'cxl destroy-
> > region region0 -f', using the 'cxl_region_disable(region)' function
> > to directly 'disable region' and then 'destroy region' would also
> > be reasonable.
>
> To make the behavior consistent, I think we should use
> disable_region() with the check for the destroy_region() path.
>
> What do you think Vishal?
> >
Yep agreed, using the new helper in destroy-region also makes sense. Do
you want to send a new patch for this - I've already applied this
series to the pending branch.
