[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <5065740A.2000502@jp.fujitsu.com>
Date: Fri, 28 Sep 2012 18:55:22 +0900
From: Yasuaki Ishimatsu <isimatu.yasuaki@...fujitsu.com>
To: KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@...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
Hi Kosaki-san,
2012/09/28 10:37, KOSAKI Motohiro wrote:
>>> Moreover, your explanation is still insufficient. Even if
>>> node_device_release() is empty function, we can get rid of the
>>> warning.
>>
>>
>> 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.
>
>
>
>>> 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().
Thanks,
Yasuaki Ishimatsu
--
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