[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1273824578.21352.579.camel@pasglop>
Date: Fri, 14 May 2010 18:09:38 +1000
From: Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@...nel.crashing.org>
To: Yinghai <yinghai.lu@...cle.com>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-arch@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 01/35] lmb: prepare x86 to use lmb to replace early_res
On Thu, 2010-05-13 at 23:19 -0700, Yinghai wrote:
> > If we expose LMB_ERROR then all lmb calls that can fail should
> return
> > that. However, the API calls all return 0 instead. Changing that
> means
> > fixing all callers.
>
> ok will stop use LMB_ERROR out lib/lmb.c
>
> will go back to use -1ULL for x86 path.
No. That is not the point. Read the rest of my email !
We need to -sanitize- those errors. _Maybe_ exposing LMB_ERROR is the
right way to do so, but in that case, we need to make -all- function use
the same error code. Right now, some fail with 0 and some with
LMB_ERROR.
You are also not responding to my other comments such as:
> > I'm also not too happy with exposing lmb_add_region(). Why would you
> > ever need to expose it ? Just call lmb_reserve() if you want to
> reserve
> > something. lmb_add_region() is an internal function and has no
> business
> > being used outside of the main lmb.c file.
etc...
Cheers,
Ben.
--
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