linux-kernel - Re: [PART2 Patch] node: cleanup node_state

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: <50920E01.6060708@cn.fujitsu.com>
Date:	Thu, 01 Nov 2012 13:52:01 +0800
From:	Wen Congyang <wency@...fujitsu.com>
To:	David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>
CC:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org,
	linux-doc@...r.kernel.org, Rob Landley <rob@...dley.net>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Yasuaki Ishimatsu <isimatu.yasuaki@...fujitsu.com>,
	Lai Jiangshan <laijs@...fujitsu.com>,
	Jiang Liu <jiang.liu@...wei.com>,
	KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@...fujitsu.com>,
	Minchan Kim <minchan.kim@...il.com>,
	Mel Gorman <mgorman@...e.de>, Yinghai Lu <yinghai@...nel.org>,
	"rusty@...tcorp.com.au" <rusty@...tcorp.com.au>
Subject: Re: [PART2 Patch] node: cleanup node_state_attr

At 11/01/2012 02:29 AM, David Rientjes Wrote:
> On Wed, 31 Oct 2012, Wen Congyang wrote:
> 
>> diff --git a/drivers/base/node.c b/drivers/base/node.c
>> index af1a177..5d7731e 100644
>> --- a/drivers/base/node.c
>> +++ b/drivers/base/node.c
>> @@ -614,23 +614,23 @@ static ssize_t show_node_state(struct device *dev,
>>  	{ __ATTR(name, 0444, show_node_state, NULL), state }
>>  
>>  static struct node_attr node_state_attr[] = {
>> -	_NODE_ATTR(possible, N_POSSIBLE),
>> -	_NODE_ATTR(online, N_ONLINE),
>> -	_NODE_ATTR(has_normal_memory, N_NORMAL_MEMORY),
>> -	_NODE_ATTR(has_cpu, N_CPU),
>> +	[N_POSSIBLE] = _NODE_ATTR(possible, N_POSSIBLE),
>> +	[N_ONLINE] = _NODE_ATTR(online, N_ONLINE),
>> +	[N_NORMAL_MEMORY] = _NODE_ATTR(has_normal_memory, N_NORMAL_MEMORY),
>>  #ifdef CONFIG_HIGHMEM
>> -	_NODE_ATTR(has_high_memory, N_HIGH_MEMORY),
>> +	[N_HIGH_MEMORY] = _NODE_ATTR(has_high_memory, N_HIGH_MEMORY),
>>  #endif
>> +	[N_CPU] = _NODE_ATTR(has_cpu, N_CPU),
>>  };
>>  
> 
> Why change the index for N_CPU?

N_CPU > N_HIGH_MEMORY

We use this array to create attr file in sysfs. So changing the index for N_CPU
doesn't cause any other problem.

Thanks
Wen Congyang

> 
>>  static struct attribute *node_state_attrs[] = {
>> -	&node_state_attr[0].attr.attr,
>> -	&node_state_attr[1].attr.attr,
>> -	&node_state_attr[2].attr.attr,
>> -	&node_state_attr[3].attr.attr,
>> +	&node_state_attr[N_POSSIBLE].attr.attr,
>> +	&node_state_attr[N_ONLINE].attr.attr,
>> +	&node_state_attr[N_NORMAL_MEMORY].attr.attr,
>>  #ifdef CONFIG_HIGHMEM
>> -	&node_state_attr[4].attr.attr,
>> +	&node_state_attr[N_HIGH_MEMORY].attr.attr,
>>  #endif
>> +	&node_state_attr[N_CPU].attr.attr,
>>  	NULL
>>  };
>>  
> 

--
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/