[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <13134523-80c2-92bc-ec4c-11d9e34f94a3@suse.cz>
Date: Thu, 20 Apr 2017 10:29:51 +0200
From: Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>
To: Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org>, linux-mm@...ck.org
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Mel Gorman <mgorman@...e.de>,
Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@...hat.com>,
Jerome Glisse <jglisse@...hat.com>,
Reza Arbab <arbab@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Yasuaki Ishimatsu <yasu.isimatu@...il.com>,
qiuxishi@...wei.com, Kani Toshimitsu <toshi.kani@....com>,
slaoub@...il.com, Joonsoo Kim <js1304@...il.com>,
Andi Kleen <ak@...ux.intel.com>,
David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>,
Daniel Kiper <daniel.kiper@...cle.com>,
Igor Mammedov <imammedo@...hat.com>,
Vitaly Kuznetsov <vkuznets@...hat.com>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.com>,
Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 7/9] mm, memory_hotplug: replace for_device by
want_memblock in arch_add_memory
On 04/10/2017 01:03 PM, Michal Hocko wrote:
> From: Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.com>
>
> arch_add_memory gets for_device argument which then controls whether we
> want to create memblocks for created memory sections. Simplify the logic
> by telling whether we want memblocks directly rather than going through
> pointless negation. This also makes the api easier to understand because
> it is clear what we want rather than nothing telling for_device which
> can mean anything.
>
> This shouldn't introduce any functional change.
>
> Cc: Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@...il.com>
> Signed-off-by: Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.com>
Acked-by: Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists