linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 4/4] drivers/base/memory.c: Rename the misleading parameter

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: <CAJZ5v0gcweDzkmYPFB3zVE8Np4ptMy1nuB0=HLuWHbHKZuuhrw@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Tue, 26 Mar 2019 10:20:38 +0100
From:   "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>
To:     Baoquan He <bhe@...hat.com>
Cc:     Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux Memory Management List <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.com>, rppt@...ux.ibm.com,
        osalvador@...e.de, Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>,
        william.kucharski@...cle.com,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 4/4] drivers/base/memory.c: Rename the misleading parameter

On Tue, Mar 26, 2019 at 10:02 AM Baoquan He <bhe@...hat.com> wrote:
>
> The input parameter 'phys_index' of memory_block_action() is actually
> the section number, but not the phys_index of memory_block. Fix it.
>
> Signed-off-by: Baoquan He <bhe@...hat.com>
> Cc: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
> Cc: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>

Reviewed-by: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@...el.com>

> ---
>  drivers/base/memory.c | 6 +++---
>  1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/base/memory.c b/drivers/base/memory.c
> index cb8347500ce2..184f4f8d1b62 100644
> --- a/drivers/base/memory.c
> +++ b/drivers/base/memory.c
> @@ -231,13 +231,13 @@ static bool pages_correctly_probed(unsigned long start_pfn)
>   * OK to have direct references to sparsemem variables in here.
>   */
>  static int
> -memory_block_action(unsigned long phys_index, unsigned long action, int online_type)
> +memory_block_action(unsigned long sec, unsigned long action, int online_type)
>  {
>         unsigned long start_pfn;
>         unsigned long nr_pages = PAGES_PER_SECTION * sections_per_block;
>         int ret;
>
> -       start_pfn = section_nr_to_pfn(phys_index);
> +       start_pfn = section_nr_to_pfn(sec);
>
>         switch (action) {
>         case MEM_ONLINE:
> @@ -251,7 +251,7 @@ memory_block_action(unsigned long phys_index, unsigned long action, int online_t
>                 break;
>         default:
>                 WARN(1, KERN_WARNING "%s(%ld, %ld) unknown action: "
> -                    "%ld\n", __func__, phys_index, action, action);
> +                    "%ld\n", __func__, sec, action, action);
>                 ret = -EINVAL;
>         }
>
> --
> 2.17.2
>