From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from psmtp.com (na3sys010amx166.postini.com [74.125.245.166]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with SMTP id AB9FA6B005D for ; Fri, 19 Oct 2012 01:36:25 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <5080E828.20109@cn.fujitsu.com> Date: Fri, 19 Oct 2012 13:42:00 +0800 From: Wen Congyang MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2]suppress "Device nodeX does not have a release() function" warning References: <507656D1.5020703@jp.fujitsu.com> <50765896.4000300@jp.fujitsu.com> <507E4F0C.9040506@cn.fujitsu.com> In-Reply-To: Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org List-ID: To: KOSAKI Motohiro Cc: Yasuaki Ishimatsu , linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, rientjes@google.com, liuj97@gmail.com, minchan.kim@gmail.com, akpm@linux-foundation.org At 10/17/2012 04:50 PM, KOSAKI Motohiro Wrote: > On Wed, Oct 17, 2012 at 2:24 AM, Wen Congyang wrote: >> At 10/12/2012 06:33 AM, KOSAKI Motohiro Wrote: >>> On Thu, Oct 11, 2012 at 1:26 AM, Yasuaki Ishimatsu >>> wrote: >>>> When calling unregister_node(), the function shows following message at >>>> device_release(). >>>> >>>> "Device 'node2' does not have a release() function, it is broken and must >>>> be fixed." >>>> >>>> The reason is node's device struct does not have a release() function. >>>> >>>> So the patch registers node_device_release() to the device's release() >>>> function for suppressing the warning message. Additionally, the patch adds >>>> memset() to initialize a node struct into register_node(). Because the node >>>> struct is part of node_devices[] array and it cannot be freed by >>>> node_device_release(). So if system reuses the node struct, it has a garbage. >>>> >>>> CC: David Rientjes >>>> CC: Jiang Liu >>>> Cc: Minchan Kim >>>> CC: Andrew Morton >>>> CC: KOSAKI Motohiro >>>> Signed-off-by: Yasuaki Ishimatsu >>>> Signed-off-by: Wen Congyang >>>> --- >>>> drivers/base/node.c | 11 +++++++++++ >>>> 1 file changed, 11 insertions(+) >>>> >>>> Index: linux-3.6/drivers/base/node.c >>>> =================================================================== >>>> --- linux-3.6.orig/drivers/base/node.c 2012-10-11 10:04:02.149758748 +0900 >>>> +++ linux-3.6/drivers/base/node.c 2012-10-11 10:20:34.111806931 +0900 >>>> @@ -252,6 +252,14 @@ static inline void hugetlb_register_node >>>> static inline void hugetlb_unregister_node(struct node *node) {} >>>> #endif >>>> >>>> +static void node_device_release(struct device *dev) >>>> +{ >>>> +#if defined(CONFIG_MEMORY_HOTPLUG_SPARSE) && defined(CONFIG_HUGETLBFS) >>>> + struct node *node_dev = to_node(dev); >>>> + >>>> + flush_work(&node_dev->node_work); >>>> +#endif >>>> +} >>> >>> The patch description don't explain why this flush_work() is needed. >> >> If the node is onlined after it is offlined, we will clear the memory, >> so we should flush_work() before node_dev is set to 0. > > So then, it is irrelevant from warning supressness. You should make an > another patch. > OK, I will update it soon. Thanks Wen Congyang -- 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