linux-kernel - [PATCH 1/8] v5 Move the find_memory

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: <4C604A6E.1030403@austin.ibm.com>
Date:	Mon, 09 Aug 2010 13:35:26 -0500
From:	Nathan Fontenot <nfont@...tin.ibm.com>
To:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org,
	linuxppc-dev@...abs.org
CC:	KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com>,
	Dave Hansen <dave@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>, Greg KH <greg@...ah.com>
Subject: [PATCH 1/8] v5 Move the find_memory_block() routine up

Move the find_me mory_block() routine up to avoid needing a forward
declaration in subsequent patches.

Signed-off-by: Nathan Fontenot <nfont@...tin.ibm.com>

---
 drivers/base/memory.c |   62 +++++++++++++++++++++++++-------------------------
 1 file changed, 31 insertions(+), 31 deletions(-)

Index: linux-2.6/drivers/base/memory.c
===================================================================
--- linux-2.6.orig/drivers/base/memory.c	2010-08-09 07:36:55.000000000 -0500
+++ linux-2.6/drivers/base/memory.c	2010-08-09 07:44:21.000000000 -0500
@@ -435,6 +435,37 @@ int __weak arch_get_memory_phys_device(u
 	return 0;
 }
 
+/*
+ * For now, we have a linear search to go find the appropriate
+ * memory_block corresponding to a particular phys_index. If
+ * this gets to be a real problem, we can always use a radix
+ * tree or something here.
+ *
+ * This could be made generic for all sysdev classes.
+ */
+struct memory_block *find_memory_block(struct mem_section *section)
+{
+	struct kobject *kobj;
+	struct sys_device *sysdev;
+	struct memory_block *mem;
+	char name[sizeof(MEMORY_CLASS_NAME) + 9 + 1];
+
+	/*
+	 * This only works because we know that section == sysdev->id
+	 * slightly redundant with sysdev_register()
+	 */
+	sprintf(&name[0], "%s%d", MEMORY_CLASS_NAME, __section_nr(section));
+
+	kobj = kset_find_obj(&memory_sysdev_class.kset, name);
+	if (!kobj)
+		return NULL;
+
+	sysdev = container_of(kobj, struct sys_device, kobj);
+	mem = container_of(sysdev, struct memory_block, sysdev);
+
+	return mem;
+}
+
 static int add_memory_block(int nid, struct mem_section *section,
 			unsigned long state, enum mem_add_context context)
 {
@@ -468,37 +499,6 @@ static int add_memory_block(int nid, str
 	return ret;
 }
 
-/*
- * For now, we have a linear search to go find the appropriate
- * memory_block corresponding to a particular phys_index. If
- * this gets to be a real problem, we can always use a radix
- * tree or something here.
- *
- * This could be made generic for all sysdev classes.
- */
-struct memory_block *find_memory_block(struct mem_section *section)
-{
-	struct kobject *kobj;
-	struct sys_device *sysdev;
-	struct memory_block *mem;
-	char name[sizeof(MEMORY_CLASS_NAME) + 9 + 1];
-
-	/*
-	 * This only works because we know that section == sysdev->id
-	 * slightly redundant with sysdev_register()
-	 */
-	sprintf(&name[0], "%s%d", MEMORY_CLASS_NAME, __section_nr(section));
-
-	kobj = kset_find_obj(&memory_sysdev_class.kset, name);
-	if (!kobj)
-		return NULL;
-
-	sysdev = container_of(kobj, struct sys_device, kobj);
-	mem = container_of(sysdev, struct memory_block, sysdev);
-
-	return mem;
-}
-
 int remove_memory_block(unsigned long node_id, struct mem_section *section,
 		int phys_device)
 {

--
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/