From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from psmtp.com (na3sys010amx161.postini.com [74.125.245.161]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 2B8516B0068 for ; Fri, 28 Sep 2012 05:55:59 -0400 (EDT) Received: from m1.gw.fujitsu.co.jp (unknown [10.0.50.71]) by fgwmail5.fujitsu.co.jp (Postfix) with ESMTP id DD4E63EE0BD for ; Fri, 28 Sep 2012 18:55:56 +0900 (JST) Received: from smail (m1 [127.0.0.1]) by outgoing.m1.gw.fujitsu.co.jp (Postfix) with ESMTP id C47D545DE60 for ; Fri, 28 Sep 2012 18:55:56 +0900 (JST) Received: from s1.gw.fujitsu.co.jp (s1.gw.fujitsu.co.jp [10.0.50.91]) by m1.gw.fujitsu.co.jp (Postfix) with ESMTP id AB5C045DE59 for ; Fri, 28 Sep 2012 18:55:56 +0900 (JST) Received: from s1.gw.fujitsu.co.jp (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by s1.gw.fujitsu.co.jp (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9D7BC1DB8055 for ; Fri, 28 Sep 2012 18:55:56 +0900 (JST) Received: from g01jpexchkw31.g01.fujitsu.local (g01jpexchkw31.g01.fujitsu.local [10.0.193.114]) by s1.gw.fujitsu.co.jp (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5A0F01DB804C for ; Fri, 28 Sep 2012 18:55:56 +0900 (JST) Message-ID: <5065740A.2000502@jp.fujitsu.com> Date: Fri, 28 Sep 2012 18:55:22 +0900 From: Yasuaki Ishimatsu MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/4] memory-hotplug: add node_device_release References: <1348724705-23779-1-git-send-email-wency@cn.fujitsu.com> <1348724705-23779-3-git-send-email-wency@cn.fujitsu.com> <5064EA5A.3080905@jp.fujitsu.com> <5064FDCA.1020504@jp.fujitsu.com> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org List-ID: To: KOSAKI Motohiro 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 Hi Kosaki-san, 2012/09/28 10:37, KOSAKI Motohiro wrote: >>> Moreover, your explanation is still insufficient. Even if >>> node_device_release() is empty function, we can get rid of the >>> warning. >> >> >> 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. > > > >>> 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(). Thanks, Yasuaki Ishimatsu -- 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: email@kvack.org