linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 3/7] Update the [register,unregister]

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: <4C3C8A6B.1030604@austin.ibm.com>
Date:	Tue, 13 Jul 2010 10:46:51 -0500
From:	Nathan Fontenot <nfont@...tin.ibm.com>
To:	KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com>
CC:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linuxppc-dev@...abs.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/7] Update the [register,unregister]_memory routines

On 07/13/2010 01:20 AM, KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki wrote:
> On Mon, 12 Jul 2010 10:44:10 -0500
> Nathan Fontenot <nfont@...tin.ibm.com> wrote:
> 
>> This patch moves the register/unregister_memory routines to
>> avoid a forward declaration.  It also moves the sysfs file
>> creation and deletion for each directory into the register/
>> unregister routines to avoid duplicating it with these updates.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Nathan Fontenot <nfont@...tin.ibm.com>
>> ---
>>  drivers/base/memory.c |   93 +++++++++++++++++++++++++-------------------------
>>  1 file changed, 48 insertions(+), 45 deletions(-)
>>
>> Index: linux-2.6/drivers/base/memory.c
>> ===================================================================
>> --- linux-2.6.orig/drivers/base/memory.c	2010-07-09 14:23:17.000000000 -0500
>> +++ linux-2.6/drivers/base/memory.c	2010-07-09 14:23:20.000000000 -0500
>> @@ -87,31 +87,6 @@
>>  EXPORT_SYMBOL(unregister_memory_isolate_notifier);
>>  
>>  /*
>> - * register_memory - Setup a sysfs device for a memory block
>> - */
>> -static
>> -int register_memory(struct memory_block *memory, struct mem_section *section)
>> -{
>> -	int error;
>> -
>> -	memory->sysdev.cls = &memory_sysdev_class;
>> -	memory->sysdev.id = __section_nr(section);
>> -
>> -	error = sysdev_register(&memory->sysdev);
>> -	return error;
>> -}
>> -
>> -static void
>> -unregister_memory(struct memory_block *memory)
>> -{
>> -	BUG_ON(memory->sysdev.cls != &memory_sysdev_class);
>> -
>> -	/* drop the ref. we got in remove_memory_block() */
>> -	kobject_put(&memory->sysdev.kobj);
>> -	sysdev_unregister(&memory->sysdev);
>> -}
>> -
>> -/*
>>   * use this as the physical section index that this memsection
>>   * uses.
>>   */
>> @@ -346,6 +321,53 @@
>>  	sysdev_remove_file(&mem->sysdev, &attr_##attr_name)
>>  
>>  /*
>> + * register_memory - Setup a sysfs device for a memory block
>> + */
>> +static
>> +int register_memory(struct memory_block *memory, struct mem_section *section,
>> +		    int nid, enum mem_add_context context)
>> +{
>> +	int ret;
>> +
>> +	memory->sysdev.cls = &memory_sysdev_class;
>> +	memory->sysdev.id = __section_nr(section);
>> +

> Why not block-ID  but section-ID ?

Using the beginning section id as the id here makes the splitting of
memory_block's easier since we can assume that the id is unique.

> 
> -Kame
> 

--
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/