linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v3 05/11] drivers/base/memory: Pass a block_id to init_memory

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: <cd708cec-f369-4176-16c9-93a3c8ab6947@redhat.com>
Date:   Tue, 4 Jun 2019 08:56:40 +0200
From:   David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com>
To:     Wei Yang <richard.weiyang@...il.com>
Cc:     linux-mm@...ck.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-ia64@...r.kernel.org, linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org,
        linux-s390@...r.kernel.org, linux-sh@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
        Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@...el.com>,
        Igor Mammedov <imammedo@...hat.com>,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 05/11] drivers/base/memory: Pass a block_id to
 init_memory_block()

On 03.06.19 23:49, Wei Yang wrote:
> On Mon, May 27, 2019 at 01:11:46PM +0200, David Hildenbrand wrote:
>> We'll rework hotplug_memory_register() shortly, so it no longer consumes
>> pass a section.
>>
>> Cc: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
>> Cc: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>
>> Signed-off-by: David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com>
>> ---
>> drivers/base/memory.c | 15 +++++++--------
>> 1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/base/memory.c b/drivers/base/memory.c
>> index f180427e48f4..f914fa6fe350 100644
>> --- a/drivers/base/memory.c
>> +++ b/drivers/base/memory.c
>> @@ -651,21 +651,18 @@ int register_memory(struct memory_block *memory)
>> 	return ret;
>> }
>>
>> -static int init_memory_block(struct memory_block **memory,
>> -			     struct mem_section *section, unsigned long state)
>> +static int init_memory_block(struct memory_block **memory, int block_id,
>> +			     unsigned long state)
>> {
>> 	struct memory_block *mem;
>> 	unsigned long start_pfn;
>> -	int scn_nr;
>> 	int ret = 0;
>>
>> 	mem = kzalloc(sizeof(*mem), GFP_KERNEL);
>> 	if (!mem)
>> 		return -ENOMEM;
>>
>> -	scn_nr = __section_nr(section);
>> -	mem->start_section_nr =
>> -			base_memory_block_id(scn_nr) * sections_per_block;
>> +	mem->start_section_nr = block_id * sections_per_block;
>> 	mem->end_section_nr = mem->start_section_nr + sections_per_block - 1;
>> 	mem->state = state;
>> 	start_pfn = section_nr_to_pfn(mem->start_section_nr);
>> @@ -694,7 +691,8 @@ static int add_memory_block(int base_section_nr)
>>
>> 	if (section_count == 0)
>> 		return 0;
>> -	ret = init_memory_block(&mem, __nr_to_section(section_nr), MEM_ONLINE);
>> +	ret = init_memory_block(&mem, base_memory_block_id(base_section_nr),
>> +				MEM_ONLINE);
> 
> If my understanding is correct, section_nr could be removed too.

Yes you are, this has already been addressed in linux-next.


-- 

Thanks,

David / dhildenb