On 08.10.22 03:40, zhaogongyi wrote:

Hi!

...

On 30.09.22 10:52, zhaogongyi wrote:

...

Hi!

...

On 30.09.22 08:35, Zhao Gongyi wrote:

...

Some momory will be left in offline state when calling offline_memory_expect_fail() failed. Restore it before exit.

Signed-off-by: Zhao Gongyi zhaogongyi@huawei.com

.../memory-hotplug/mem-on-off-test.sh         | 21

++++++++++++++-----

...

1 file changed, 16 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)

diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/memory-hotplug/mem-on-off-test.sh

b/tools/testing/selftests/memory-hotplug/mem-on-off-test.sh

...

index 1d87611a7d52..91a7457616bb 100755 --- a/tools/testing/selftests/memory-hotplug/mem-on-off-test.sh +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/memory-hotplug/mem-on-off-test.sh @@ -134,6 +134,16 @@ offline_memory_expect_fail() return 0 }

+online_all_offline_memory() +{

• for memory in `hotpluggable_offline_memory`; do

• if ! online_memory_expect_success $memory; then
  

• 	echo "$FUNCNAME $memory: unexpected fail" >&2
  

Do we need that output?

In my opinion, if online a memory node failed ,it should be a kernel bug

catched, so, I think the output here is needed.

But online_memory_expect_success() already prints a warning, no?

Yes, online_memory_expect_success() already prints a warning, remove the warning in online_all_offline_memory() seems ok,

My previous consideration was that one more log information would make it easier to locate the wrong location.

Let's keep it simple unless there is real reason to warn twice.