linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 2/2] ACPI,acpi_memhotplug: Remove acpi_memory

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: <1363912171.11659.12.camel@misato.fc.hp.com>
Date:	Thu, 21 Mar 2013 18:29:31 -0600
From:	Toshi Kani <toshi.kani@...com>
To:	Yasuaki Ishimatsu <isimatu.yasuaki@...fujitsu.com>
Cc:	rjw@...k.pl, linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org, tangchen@...fujitsu.com,
	wency@...fujitsu.com, laijs@...fujitsu.com,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] ACPI,acpi_memhotplug: Remove
 acpi_memory_info->failed bit

On Thu, 2013-03-21 at 13:39 +0900, Yasuaki Ishimatsu wrote:
> acpi_memory_info has enabled bit and failed bit for controlling memory
> hotplug. But we don't need to keep both bits.
> 
> The patch removes acpi_memory_info->failed bit.
> 
> Signed-off-by: yasuaki ishimatsu <isimatu.yasuaki@...fujitsu.com>
> ---
> 
> v2 : Changed a based kernel from linux-3.9-rc2 to linux-pm.git/bleeding-edge.
> 
> ---
>   drivers/acpi/acpi_memhotplug.c |   13 +------------
>   1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/acpi/acpi_memhotplug.c b/drivers/acpi/acpi_memhotplug.c
> index ea78988..597cd65 100644
> --- a/drivers/acpi/acpi_memhotplug.c
> +++ b/drivers/acpi/acpi_memhotplug.c
> @@ -73,7 +73,6 @@ struct acpi_memory_info {
>   	unsigned short caching;	/* memory cache attribute */
>   	unsigned short write_protect;	/* memory read/write attribute */
>   	unsigned int enabled:1;
> -	unsigned int failed:1;
>   };
>   
>   struct acpi_memory_device {
> @@ -201,10 +200,8 @@ static int acpi_memory_enable_device(struct acpi_memory_device *mem_device)
>   		 * returns -EEXIST. If add_memory() returns the other error, it
>   		 * means that this memory block is not used by the kernel.
>   		 */
> -		if (result && result != -EEXIST) {
> -			info->failed = 1;
> +		if (result && result != -EEXIST)
>   			continue;
> -		}
>   
>   		info->enabled = 1;
>   
> @@ -238,15 +235,7 @@ static int acpi_memory_remove_memory(struct acpi_memory_device *mem_device)
>   	nid = acpi_get_node(mem_device->device->handle);
>   
>   	list_for_each_entry_safe(info, n, &mem_device->res_list, list) {
> -		if (info->failed)
> -			/* The kernel does not use this memory block */
> -			continue;
> -
>   		if (!info->enabled)
> -			/*
> -			 * The kernel uses this memory block, but it may be not
> -			 * managed by us.
> -			 */
>   			return -EBUSY;

Shouldn't this case (!info->enabled) continue since it is the same as
info->failed before?  -EBUSY was previously used for the -EEXIST case,
which is no longer a failure case with this patchset.

Thanks,
-Toshi


--
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/