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
| ||
|
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