linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH -v2 6/9] bootmem: add free_bootmem

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-Id: <20091114215041W.fujita.tomonori@lab.ntt.co.jp>
Date:	Sat, 14 Nov 2009 21:50:56 +0900
From:	FUJITA Tomonori <fujita.tomonori@....ntt.co.jp>
To:	hannes@...xchg.org
Cc:	fujita.tomonori@....ntt.co.jp, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	mingo@...e.hu, chrisw@...s-sol.org, wmw2@...radead.org,
	joerg.roedel@....com, muli@...ibm.com, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
	tj@...nel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH -v2 6/9] bootmem: add free_bootmem_late

Thanks for reviewing,

On Tue, 10 Nov 2009 13:00:53 +0100
Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org> wrote:

> I find it a bit weird that free_all_bootmem() callers have to take
> care of totalram_pages while this function does the accounting on its
> own.

Ah, it might be consistent to make the callers take care of
totalram_pages like free_all_bootmem.


> And I think the function is more logically placed right below
> free_bootmem(), like you did in the header.

However, if we do the above, we have:

unsigned long free_bootmem_late(unsigned long addr, unsigned long
size)

Which looks inconsistent a bit with free_bootmem()?
--
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/