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: <508102A8.1050605@cn.fujitsu.com>
Date:	Fri, 19 Oct 2012 15:35:04 +0800
From:	Wen Congyang <wency@...fujitsu.com>
To:	Yasuaki Ishimatsu <isimatu.yasuaki@...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()

At 10/18/2012 09:25 AM, Yasuaki Ishimatsu Wrote:
> 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?

OK

Thanks
Wen Congyang

> 
> 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/
> 

--
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/