[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <514BB566.3050903@jp.fujitsu.com>
Date: Fri, 22 Mar 2013 10:35:34 +0900
From: Yasuaki Ishimatsu <isimatu.yasuaki@...fujitsu.com>
To: Toshi Kani <toshi.kani@...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
Hi Toshi,
2013/03/22 9:29, Toshi Kani wrote:
> 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.
You are right. It is my mitake. We need to continue to hot remove memory.
I'll update soon.
Thanks,
Yasuaki Ishimatsu
>
> Thanks,
> -Toshi
>
>
> --
> 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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists