From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Tejun Heo Subject: Re: [PATCH 02/21] memblock, numa: Introduce flag into memblock. Date: Tue, 23 Jul 2013 15:09:28 -0400 Message-ID: <20130723190928.GH21100@mtj.dyndns.org> References: <1374220774-29974-1-git-send-email-tangchen@cn.fujitsu.com> <1374220774-29974-3-git-send-email-tangchen@cn.fujitsu.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1374220774-29974-3-git-send-email-tangchen@cn.fujitsu.com> Sender: linux-doc-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Tang Chen Cc: tglx@linutronix.de, mingo@elte.hu, hpa@zytor.com, akpm@linux-foundation.org, trenn@suse.de, yinghai@kernel.org, jiang.liu@huawei.com, wency@cn.fujitsu.com, laijs@cn.fujitsu.com, isimatu.yasuaki@jp.fujitsu.com, izumi.taku@jp.fujitsu.com, mgorman@suse.de, minchan@kernel.org, mina86@mina86.com, gong.chen@linux.intel.com, vasilis.liaskovitis@profitbricks.com, lwoodman@redhat.com, riel@redhat.com, jweiner@redhat.com, prarit@redhat.com, zhangyanfei@cn.fujitsu.com, yanghy@cn.fujitsu.com, x86@kernel.org, linux-doc@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org Hello, On Fri, Jul 19, 2013 at 03:59:15PM +0800, Tang Chen wrote: > +#define MEMBLK_FLAGS_DEFAULT 0x0 /* default flag */ Please don't do this. Just clearing the struct as zero is enough. > @@ -439,12 +449,14 @@ repeat: > int __init_memblock memblock_add_node(phys_addr_t base, phys_addr_t size, > int nid) > { > - return memblock_add_region(&memblock.memory, base, size, nid); > + return memblock_add_region(&memblock.memory, base, size, > + nid, MEMBLK_FLAGS_DEFAULT); And just use zero for no flag. Doing something like the above gets weird with actual flags. e.g. if you add a flag, say, MEMBLK_HOTPLUG, should it be MEMBLK_FLAGS_DEFAULT | MEMBLK_HOTPLUG or just MEMBLK_HOTPLUG? If latter, the knowledge that DEFAULT is zero is implicit, and, if so, why do it at all? > +static int __init_memblock memblock_reserve_region(phys_addr_t base, > + phys_addr_t size, > + int nid, > + unsigned long flags) > { > struct memblock_type *_rgn = &memblock.reserved; > > - memblock_dbg("memblock_reserve: [%#016llx-%#016llx] %pF\n", > + memblock_dbg("memblock_reserve: [%#016llx-%#016llx] with flags %#016lx %pF\n", Let's please drop "with" and do we really need to print full 16 digits? Thanks. -- tejun