From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from e3.ny.us.ibm.com (e3.ny.us.ibm.com [32.97.182.143]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client CN "e3.ny.us.ibm.com", Issuer "Equifax" (verified OK)) by ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4DE73B7085 for ; Sat, 17 Jul 2010 01:40:19 +1000 (EST) Received: from d01relay03.pok.ibm.com (d01relay03.pok.ibm.com [9.56.227.235]) by e3.ny.us.ibm.com (8.14.4/8.13.1) with ESMTP id o6GFPswk027144 for ; Fri, 16 Jul 2010 11:25:54 -0400 Received: from d01av03.pok.ibm.com (d01av03.pok.ibm.com [9.56.224.217]) by d01relay03.pok.ibm.com (8.13.8/8.13.8/NCO v10.0) with ESMTP id o6GFeGS9158576 for ; Fri, 16 Jul 2010 11:40:16 -0400 Received: from d01av03.pok.ibm.com (loopback [127.0.0.1]) by d01av03.pok.ibm.com (8.14.4/8.13.1/NCO v10.0 AVout) with ESMTP id o6GFeFZK006915 for ; Fri, 16 Jul 2010 12:40:16 -0300 Message-ID: <4C407D5E.7060702@austin.ibm.com> Date: Fri, 16 Jul 2010 10:40:14 -0500 From: Nathan Fontenot MIME-Version: 1.0 To: KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/5] v2 Update sysfs node routines for new sysfs memory directories References: <4C3F53D1.3090001@austin.ibm.com> <4C3F5628.6030809@austin.ibm.com> <20100716091239.69f40e47.kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com> In-Reply-To: <20100716091239.69f40e47.kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Cc: linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org List-Id: Linux on PowerPC Developers Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , On 07/15/2010 07:12 PM, KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki wrote: > On Thu, 15 Jul 2010 13:40:40 -0500 > Nathan Fontenot wrote: > >> Update the node sysfs directory routines that create >> links to the memory sysfs directories under each node. >> This update makes the node code aware that a memory sysfs >> directory can cover multiple memory sections. >> >> Signed-off-by: Nathan Fontenot > > Shouldn't "static int link_mem_sections(int nid)" be update ? > It does > for (pfn = start_pfn; pfn < end_pfn; pfn += PAGES_PER_SECTION) { > register.. > No, although the name 'link_mem_sections' does imply that it should. The range of start_pfn..end_pfn examined in this routine is the range of pfn's covered by the entire node, not a memory_block. -Nathan > Thanks, > -Kame > > >> --- >> drivers/base/node.c | 12 ++++++++---- >> 1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-) >> >> Index: linux-2.6/drivers/base/node.c >> =================================================================== >> --- linux-2.6.orig/drivers/base/node.c 2010-07-15 09:54:06.000000000 -0500 >> +++ linux-2.6/drivers/base/node.c 2010-07-15 09:56:16.000000000 -0500 >> @@ -346,8 +346,10 @@ >> return -EFAULT; >> if (!node_online(nid)) >> return 0; >> - sect_start_pfn = section_nr_to_pfn(mem_blk->phys_index); >> - sect_end_pfn = sect_start_pfn + PAGES_PER_SECTION - 1; >> + >> + sect_start_pfn = section_nr_to_pfn(mem_blk->start_phys_index); >> + sect_end_pfn = section_nr_to_pfn(mem_blk->end_phys_index); >> + sect_end_pfn += PAGES_PER_SECTION - 1; >> for (pfn = sect_start_pfn; pfn <= sect_end_pfn; pfn++) { >> int page_nid; >> >> @@ -383,8 +385,10 @@ >> if (!unlinked_nodes) >> return -ENOMEM; >> nodes_clear(*unlinked_nodes); >> - sect_start_pfn = section_nr_to_pfn(mem_blk->phys_index); >> - sect_end_pfn = sect_start_pfn + PAGES_PER_SECTION - 1; >> + >> + sect_start_pfn = section_nr_to_pfn(mem_blk->start_phys_index); >> + sect_end_pfn = section_nr_to_pfn(mem_blk->end_phys_index); >> + sect_end_pfn += PAGES_PER_SECTION - 1; >> for (pfn = sect_start_pfn; pfn <= sect_end_pfn; pfn++) { >> int nid; >> >> >> -- >> 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/ >> >