[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <87bq2bmvro.fsf@saeurebad.de>
Date: Mon, 09 Jun 2008 00:01:15 +0200
From: Johannes Weiner <hannes@...urebad.de>
To: Bernhard Walle <bwalle@...e.de>
Cc: kexec@...ts.infradead.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
hpa@...or.com, mingo@...hat.com, tglx@...utronix.de,
vgoyal@...hat.com, anderson@...hat.com
Subject: Re: [patch 2/3] Add flags parameter to reserve_bootmem_generic()
Hi,
Bernhard Walle <bwalle@...e.de> writes:
> --- a/arch/x86/mm/init_64.c
> +++ b/arch/x86/mm/init_64.c
> @@ -798,12 +798,13 @@ void free_initrd_mem(unsigned long start
> }
> #endif
>
> -void __init reserve_bootmem_generic(unsigned long phys, unsigned len)
> +int __init reserve_bootmem_generic(unsigned long phys, unsigned len, int flags)
> {
> #ifdef CONFIG_NUMA
> int nid, next_nid;
> #endif
> unsigned long pfn = phys >> PAGE_SHIFT;
> + int ret;
>
> if (pfn >= end_pfn) {
> /*
> @@ -811,11 +812,11 @@ void __init reserve_bootmem_generic(unsi
> * firmware tables:
> */
> if (pfn < max_pfn_mapped)
> - return;
> + return -EFAULT;
This seemed to be `just do nothing' behaviour. Wouldn't 0 be more
correct here? Or something else so there is a difference between the
path that does not print a warning (the one below) and the path that
does?
>
> printk(KERN_ERR "reserve_bootmem: illegal reserve %lx %u\n",
> phys, len);
> - return;
> + return -EFAULT;
> }
Hannes
--
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