[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <1202854520.11188.90.camel@nimitz.home.sr71.net>
Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2008 14:15:20 -0800
From: Dave Hansen <haveblue@...ibm.com>
To: Badari Pulavarty <pbadari@...ibm.com>
Cc: Yasunori Goto <y-goto@...fujitsu.com>,
KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
lkml <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, greg@...ah.com,
linux-mm <linux-mm@...ck.org>
Subject: Re: [-mm PATCH] register_memory/unregister_memory clean ups
On Tue, 2008-02-12 at 14:07 -0800, Badari Pulavarty wrote:
> On Tue, 2008-02-12 at 13:57 -0800, Dave Hansen wrote:
> > On Tue, 2008-02-12 at 13:56 -0800, Badari Pulavarty wrote:
> > >
> > > +static void __remove_section(struct zone *zone, unsigned long
> > > section_nr)
> > > +{
> > > + if (!valid_section_nr(section_nr))
> > > + return;
> > > +
> > > + unregister_memory_section(__nr_to_section(section_nr));
> > > + sparse_remove_one_section(zone, section_nr);
> > > +}
> >
> > I do think passing in a mem_section* here is highly superior. It makes
> > it impossible to pass a pfn in and not get a warning.
> >
>
> Only problem is, I need to hold pgdat_resize_lock() if pass *ms.
> If I don't hold the resize_lock, I have to re-evaluate.
What's wrong with holding the resize lock? What races, precisely, are
you trying to avoid?
> And also,
> I need to pass section_nr for decoding the mem_map anyway :(
See sparse.c::__section_nr(). It takes a mem_section* and returns a
section_nr.
-- Dave
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists