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]

Date:	Thu, 18 Oct 2012 10:25:12 +0900
From:	Yasuaki Ishimatsu <isimatu.yasuaki@...fujitsu.com>
To:	Wen Congyang <wency@...fujitsu.com>
CC:	KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@...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()

Hi Wen,

2012/10/17 18:52, Wen Congyang wrote:
> 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?

Oops. If so, it's my mistake.
Could you update it in next version?

Thanks,
Yasuaki Ishimatsu

>
> 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-acpi" in
> the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
> More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
>


--
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/