linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/4] acpi,memory-hotplug : add memory offline code to acpi_memory_device

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: <507E7FC2.8@cn.fujitsu.com>
Date:	Wed, 17 Oct 2012 17:52:02 +0800
From:	Wen Congyang <wency@...fujitsu.com>
To:	KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@...fujitsu.com>,
	Yasuaki Ishimatsu <isimatu.yasuaki@...fujitsu.com>
CC:	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()

At 10/17/2012 05:18 PM, KOSAKI Motohiro Wrote:
>>>>>> 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.

We just move the code, and don't change the acpi_memory_disable_device()'s behavior.

I look it the change again, and found some diffs:
1. we treat !info->enabled as error, while it isn't a error without this patch
2. we remove memory info from the list, it is a bug fix because we free the memory
   that stores memory info.(I have sent a patch to fix this bug, and it is in akpm's tree now)

I guess you mean 1 will change the behavior. In the last version, I don't do it.
Ishimatsu changes this and I don't notify this.

To Ishimatsu:

Why do you change this?

Thanks
Wen Congyang

> --
> 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/
> 

--
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/