From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from e1.ny.us.ibm.com (e1.ny.us.ibm.com [32.97.182.141]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client CN "e1.ny.us.ibm.com", Issuer "Equifax" (verified OK)) by ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 70414B7121 for ; Wed, 29 Sep 2010 04:07:02 +1000 (EST) Received: from d01relay06.pok.ibm.com (d01relay06.pok.ibm.com [9.56.227.116]) by e1.ny.us.ibm.com (8.14.4/8.13.1) with ESMTP id o8SI09C1021952 for ; Tue, 28 Sep 2010 14:00:09 -0400 Received: from d01av01.pok.ibm.com (d01av01.pok.ibm.com [9.56.224.215]) by d01relay06.pok.ibm.com (8.13.8/8.13.8/NCO v10.0) with ESMTP id o8SI6U4M2011282 for ; Tue, 28 Sep 2010 14:06:31 -0400 Received: from d01av01.pok.ibm.com (loopback [127.0.0.1]) by d01av01.pok.ibm.com (8.14.4/8.13.1/NCO v10.0 AVout) with ESMTP id o8SI6TW1023169 for ; Tue, 28 Sep 2010 14:06:30 -0400 Message-ID: <4CA22EA2.8060307@austin.ibm.com> Date: Tue, 28 Sep 2010 13:06:26 -0500 From: Nathan Fontenot MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Dave Hansen Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/8] v2 Allow memory block to span multiple memory sections References: <4CA0EBEB.1030204@austin.ibm.com> <4CA0EFAA.8050000@austin.ibm.com> <1285631707.19976.3385.camel@nimitz> In-Reply-To: <1285631707.19976.3385.camel@nimitz> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: linux-mm@kvack.org, Greg KH , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki , linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org List-Id: Linux on PowerPC Developers Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , On 09/27/2010 06:55 PM, Dave Hansen wrote: > On Mon, 2010-09-27 at 14:25 -0500, Nathan Fontenot wrote: >> +static inline int base_memory_block_id(int section_nr) >> +{ >> + return section_nr / sections_per_block; >> +} > ... >> - mutex_lock(&mem_sysfs_mutex); >> - >> - mem->phys_index = __section_nr(section); >> + scn_nr = __section_nr(section); >> + mem->phys_index = base_memory_block_id(scn_nr) * sections_per_block; > > I'm really regretting giving this variable such a horrid name. I suck. > > I think this is correct now: > > mem->phys_index = base_memory_block_id(scn_nr) * sections_per_block; > mem->phys_index = section_nr / sections_per_block * sections_per_block; > mem->phys_index = section_nr > > Since it gets exported to userspace this way: > >> +static ssize_t show_mem_start_phys_index(struct sys_device *dev, >> struct sysdev_attribute *attr, char *buf) >> { >> struct memory_block *mem = >> container_of(dev, struct memory_block, sysdev); >> - return sprintf(buf, "%08lx\n", mem->phys_index / sections_per_block); >> + unsigned long phys_index; >> + >> + phys_index = mem->start_phys_index / sections_per_block; >> + return sprintf(buf, "%08lx\n", phys_index); >> +} > > The only other thing I'd say is that we need to put phys_index out of > its misery and call it what it is now: a section number. I think it's > OK to call them "start/end_section_nr", at least inside the kernel. I > intentionally used "phys_index" terminology in sysfs so that we _could_ > eventually do this stuff and break the relationship between sections and > the sysfs dirs, but I think keeping the terminology around inside the > kernel is confusing now. Yes, it took me a couple o looks to get the phys_index <-> section number correlation. I think changing the kernel names to start/end_section_number is a good idea. -Nathan > > -- Dave >