[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAHGf_=oNufcAQhxWtvq56qwF==+14+Cm7r9eiTGdY=B=ENwPQg@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 17 Oct 2012 05:18:51 -0400
From: KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@...fujitsu.com>
To: Wen Congyang <wency@...fujitsu.com>
Cc: Yasuaki Ishimatsu <isimatu.yasuaki@...fujitsu.com>, x86@...nel.org,
linux-mm@...ck.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org, rientjes@...gle.com, liuj97@...il.com,
len.brown@...el.com, cl@...ux.com, minchan.kim@...il.com,
akpm@...ux-foundation.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/4] acpi,memory-hotplug : add memory offline code to acpi_memory_device_remove()
>>>>> Hmm, it doesn't move the code. It just reuse the code in acpi_memory_powerdown_device().
>>>>
>>>> Even if reuse or not reuse, you changed the behavior. If any changes
>>>> has no good rational, you cannot get an ack.
>>>
>>> I don't understand this? IIRC, the behavior isn't changed.
>>
>> Heh, please explain why do you think so.
>
> We just introduce a function, and move codes from acpi_memory_disable_device() to the new
> function. We call the new function in acpi_memory_disable_device(), so the function
> acpi_memory_disable_device()'s behavior isn't changed.
>
> Maybe I don't understand what do you want to say.
Ok, now you agreed you moved the code, yes? So then, you should explain why
your code moving makes zero impact other acpi_memory_disable_device() caller.
--
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