[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20190329125503.GK7627@MiWiFi-R3L-srv>
Date: Fri, 29 Mar 2019 20:55:03 +0800
From: Baoquan He <bhe@...hat.com>
To: Oscar Salvador <osalvador@...e.de>
Cc: Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-mm@...ck.org, rafael@...nel.org, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
rppt@...ux.ibm.com, willy@...radead.org, fanc.fnst@...fujitsu.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 2/2] drivers/base/memory.c: Rename the misleading
parameter
On 03/29/19 at 10:37am, Oscar Salvador wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 29, 2019 at 10:13:25AM +0100, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > On Fri 29-03-19 16:29:15, Baoquan He 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.
> >
> > I have tried to explain that the naming is mostly a relict from the past
> > than really a misleading name http://lkml.kernel.org/r/20190326093315.GL28406@dhcp22.suse.cz
> > Maybe it would be good to reflect that in the changelog
>
> I think that phys_device variable in remove_memory_section() is also a relict
> from the past, and it is no longer used.
> Neither node_id variable is used.
> Actually, unregister_memory_section() sets those two to 0 no matter what.
>
> Since we are cleaning up, I wonder if we can go a bit further and we can get
> rid of that as well.
Yes, certainly. I would like to post a new one to carry this.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists