[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAHGf_=o_FLsEULK3s1+zD-A0FL5QvKnX542Lz4vCwVVV2fYNRw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 28 Sep 2012 18:19:36 -0400
From: KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@...fujitsu.com>
To: Yasuaki Ishimatsu <isimatu.yasuaki@...fujitsu.com>
Cc: wency@...fujitsu.com, linux-mm@...ck.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, rientjes@...gle.com,
liuj97@...il.com, len.brown@...el.com, benh@...nel.crashing.org,
paulus@...ba.org, minchan.kim@...il.com, akpm@...ux-foundation.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/4] memory-hotplug: add node_device_release
>>> I don't understand it. How can we get rid of the warning?
>>
>> See cpu_device_release() for example.
>
> If we implement a function like cpu_device_release(), the warning
> disappears. But the comment says in the function "Never copy this way...".
> So I think it is illegal way.
What does "illegal" mean?
You still haven't explain any benefit of your code. If there is zero
benefit, just kill it.
I believe everybody think so.
Again, Which benefit do you have?
>>>> Why do we need this node_device_release() implementation?
>>>
>>> I think that this is a manner of releasing object related kobject.
>>
>> No. Usually we never call memset() from release callback.
>
> What we want to release is a part of array, not a pointer.
> Therefore, there is only this way instead of kfree().
Why? Before your patch, we don't have memset() and did work it.
I can't understand what mean "only way".
--
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