From: Yasuaki Ishimatsu <isimatu.yasuaki@jp.fujitsu.com>
To: KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@jp.fujitsu.com>
Cc: wency@cn.fujitsu.com, linux-mm@kvack.org,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, rientjes@google.com,
liuj97@gmail.com, len.brown@intel.com, benh@kernel.crashing.org,
paulus@samba.org, minchan.kim@gmail.com,
akpm@linux-foundation.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/4] memory-hotplug: add node_device_release
Date: Mon, 1 Oct 2012 15:54:40 +0900 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <50693E30.3010006@jp.fujitsu.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAHGf_=o_FLsEULK3s1+zD-A0FL5QvKnX542Lz4vCwVVV2fYNRw@mail.gmail.com>
Hi Kosaki-san,
2012/09/29 7:19, KOSAKI Motohiro wrote:
>>>> I don't understand it. How can we get rid of the warning?
>>>
>>> See cpu_device_release() for example.
>>
>> If we implement a function like cpu_device_release(), the warning
>> disappears. But the comment says in the function "Never copy this way...".
>> So I think it is illegal way.
>
> What does "illegal" mean?
The "illegal" means the code should not be mimicked.
> You still haven't explain any benefit of your code. If there is zero
> benefit, just kill it.
> I believe everybody think so.
>
> Again, Which benefit do you have?
The patch has a benefit to delets a warning message.
>
>>>>> Why do we need this node_device_release() implementation?
>>>>
>>>> I think that this is a manner of releasing object related kobject.
>>>
>>> No. Usually we never call memset() from release callback.
>>
>> What we want to release is a part of array, not a pointer.
>> Therefore, there is only this way instead of kfree().
>
> Why? Before your patch, we don't have memset() and did work it.
If we does not apply the patch, a warning message is shown.
So I think it did not work well.
> I can't understand what mean "only way".
For deleting a warning message, I created a node_device_release().
In the manner of releasing kobject, the function frees a object related
to the kobject. So most functions calls kfree() for releasing it.
In node_device_release(), we need to free a node struct. If the node
struct is pointer, I can free it by kfree. But the node struct is a part
of node_devices[] array. I cannot free it. So I filled the node struct
with 0.
But you think it is not good. Do you have a good solution?
Thanks,
Yasuaki Ishimatsu
> --
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
> the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
> More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
> Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
>
--
To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
the body to majordomo@kvack.org. For more info on Linux MM,
see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@kvack.org"> email@kvack.org </a>
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Yasuaki Ishimatsu <isimatu.yasuaki@jp.fujitsu.com>
To: KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@jp.fujitsu.com>
Cc: <wency@cn.fujitsu.com>, <linux-mm@kvack.org>,
<linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>, <rientjes@google.com>,
<liuj97@gmail.com>, <len.brown@intel.com>,
<benh@kernel.crashing.org>, <paulus@samba.org>,
<minchan.kim@gmail.com>, <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/4] memory-hotplug: add node_device_release
Date: Mon, 1 Oct 2012 15:54:40 +0900 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <50693E30.3010006@jp.fujitsu.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAHGf_=o_FLsEULK3s1+zD-A0FL5QvKnX542Lz4vCwVVV2fYNRw@mail.gmail.com>
Hi Kosaki-san,
2012/09/29 7:19, KOSAKI Motohiro wrote:
>>>> I don't understand it. How can we get rid of the warning?
>>>
>>> See cpu_device_release() for example.
>>
>> If we implement a function like cpu_device_release(), the warning
>> disappears. But the comment says in the function "Never copy this way...".
>> So I think it is illegal way.
>
> What does "illegal" mean?
The "illegal" means the code should not be mimicked.
> You still haven't explain any benefit of your code. If there is zero
> benefit, just kill it.
> I believe everybody think so.
>
> Again, Which benefit do you have?
The patch has a benefit to delets a warning message.
>
>>>>> Why do we need this node_device_release() implementation?
>>>>
>>>> I think that this is a manner of releasing object related kobject.
>>>
>>> No. Usually we never call memset() from release callback.
>>
>> What we want to release is a part of array, not a pointer.
>> Therefore, there is only this way instead of kfree().
>
> Why? Before your patch, we don't have memset() and did work it.
If we does not apply the patch, a warning message is shown.
So I think it did not work well.
> I can't understand what mean "only way".
For deleting a warning message, I created a node_device_release().
In the manner of releasing kobject, the function frees a object related
to the kobject. So most functions calls kfree() for releasing it.
In node_device_release(), we need to free a node struct. If the node
struct is pointer, I can free it by kfree. But the node struct is a part
of node_devices[] array. I cannot free it. So I filled the node struct
with 0.
But you think it is not good. Do you have a good solution?
Thanks,
Yasuaki Ishimatsu
> --
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
> the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
> More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
> Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2012-10-01 6:55 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 65+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2012-09-27 5:45 [PATCH 0/4] bugfix for memory hotplug wency
2012-09-27 5:45 ` wency
2012-09-27 5:45 ` [PATCH 1/4] memory-hotplug: add memory_block_release wency
2012-09-27 5:45 ` wency
2012-09-27 10:20 ` Ni zhan Chen
2012-09-28 0:24 ` Yasuaki Ishimatsu
2012-09-28 0:24 ` Yasuaki Ishimatsu
2012-09-28 1:35 ` KOSAKI Motohiro
2012-09-28 1:35 ` KOSAKI Motohiro
2012-09-28 3:45 ` Yasuaki Ishimatsu
2012-09-28 3:45 ` Yasuaki Ishimatsu
2012-09-28 6:04 ` Ni zhan Chen
2012-09-28 6:04 ` Ni zhan Chen
2012-09-28 6:11 ` Yasuaki Ishimatsu
2012-09-28 6:11 ` Yasuaki Ishimatsu
2012-09-28 6:14 ` Ni zhan Chen
2012-09-28 6:14 ` Ni zhan Chen
2012-09-28 22:30 ` KOSAKI Motohiro
2012-09-28 22:30 ` KOSAKI Motohiro
2012-09-27 20:11 ` KOSAKI Motohiro
2012-09-27 20:11 ` KOSAKI Motohiro
2012-09-27 5:45 ` [PATCH 2/4] memory-hotplug: add node_device_release wency
2012-09-27 5:45 ` wency
2012-09-27 10:38 ` Ni zhan Chen
2012-09-27 10:38 ` Ni zhan Chen
2012-09-27 20:13 ` KOSAKI Motohiro
2012-09-27 20:13 ` KOSAKI Motohiro
2012-09-28 0:07 ` Yasuaki Ishimatsu
2012-09-28 0:07 ` Yasuaki Ishimatsu
2012-09-28 1:13 ` KOSAKI Motohiro
2012-09-28 1:13 ` KOSAKI Motohiro
2012-09-28 1:30 ` Yasuaki Ishimatsu
2012-09-28 1:30 ` Yasuaki Ishimatsu
2012-09-28 1:37 ` KOSAKI Motohiro
2012-09-28 1:37 ` KOSAKI Motohiro
2012-09-28 9:55 ` Yasuaki Ishimatsu
2012-09-28 9:55 ` Yasuaki Ishimatsu
2012-09-28 22:19 ` KOSAKI Motohiro
2012-09-28 22:19 ` KOSAKI Motohiro
2012-10-01 6:54 ` Yasuaki Ishimatsu [this message]
2012-10-01 6:54 ` Yasuaki Ishimatsu
2012-10-01 18:12 ` KOSAKI Motohiro
2012-10-01 18:12 ` KOSAKI Motohiro
2012-10-05 1:00 ` Yasuaki Ishimatsu
2012-10-05 1:00 ` Yasuaki Ishimatsu
2012-10-05 18:39 ` KOSAKI Motohiro
2012-10-05 18:39 ` KOSAKI Motohiro
2012-09-27 5:45 ` [PATCH 3/4] memory-hotplug: clear hwpoisoned flag when onlining pages wency
2012-09-27 5:45 ` wency
2012-09-27 12:27 ` Ni zhan Chen
2012-09-27 12:27 ` Ni zhan Chen
2012-09-27 20:17 ` KOSAKI Motohiro
2012-09-27 20:17 ` KOSAKI Motohiro
2012-09-28 1:53 ` Wen Congyang
2012-09-28 1:53 ` Wen Congyang
2012-09-27 5:45 ` [PATCH 4/4] memory-hotplug: auto offline page_cgroup when onlining memory block failed wency
2012-09-27 5:45 ` wency
2012-09-27 12:44 ` Ni zhan Chen
2012-09-27 12:44 ` Ni zhan Chen
2012-09-27 20:19 ` KOSAKI Motohiro
2012-09-27 20:19 ` KOSAKI Motohiro
2012-09-27 21:18 ` [PATCH 0/4] bugfix for memory hotplug Andrew Morton
2012-09-27 21:18 ` Andrew Morton
2012-09-29 2:31 ` Ni zhan Chen
2012-09-29 2:31 ` Ni zhan Chen
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=50693E30.3010006@jp.fujitsu.com \
--to=isimatu.yasuaki@jp.fujitsu.com \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=benh@kernel.crashing.org \
--cc=kosaki.motohiro@jp.fujitsu.com \
--cc=len.brown@intel.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
--cc=liuj97@gmail.com \
--cc=minchan.kim@gmail.com \
--cc=paulus@samba.org \
--cc=rientjes@google.com \
--cc=wency@cn.fujitsu.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.