linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/5] x86, memhp, numa: Online memory-less nodes at boot time.

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: <20160108182808.GZ1898@mtj.duckdns.org>
Date:	Fri, 8 Jan 2016 13:28:08 -0500
From:	Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
To:	Tang Chen <tangchen@...fujitsu.com>
Cc:	cl@...ux.com, jiang.liu@...ux.intel.com, mika.j.penttila@...il.com,
	mingo@...hat.com, akpm@...ux-foundation.org, rjw@...ysocki.net,
	hpa@...or.com, yasu.isimatu@...il.com,
	isimatu.yasuaki@...fujitsu.com, kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com,
	izumi.taku@...fujitsu.com, gongzhaogang@...pur.com, x86@...nel.org,
	linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-mm@...ck.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/5] x86, memhp, numa: Online memory-less nodes at boot
 time.

Hello,

On Thu, Jan 07, 2016 at 12:20:21PM +0800, Tang Chen wrote:
> +static void __init init_memory_less_node(int nid)
>  {
> +	unsigned long zones_size[MAX_NR_ZONES] = {0};
> +	unsigned long zholes_size[MAX_NR_ZONES] = {0};

It doesn't cause any functional difference but it's a bit weird to use
{0} because it explicitly says to initialize the first element to 0
when the whole array needs to be cleared.  Wouldnt { } make more sense?

> diff --git a/include/linux/mmzone.h b/include/linux/mmzone.h
> index e23a9e7..9c4d4d5 100644
> --- a/include/linux/mmzone.h
> +++ b/include/linux/mmzone.h
> @@ -736,6 +736,7 @@ static inline bool is_dev_zone(const struct zone *zone)
>  
>  extern struct mutex zonelists_mutex;
>  void build_all_zonelists(pg_data_t *pgdat, struct zone *zone);
> +void build_zonelists(pg_data_t *pgdat);

This isn't used in this patch.  Contamination?

Thanks.

-- 
tejun