From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1755869Ab0I1SGt (ORCPT ); Tue, 28 Sep 2010 14:06:49 -0400 Received: from e3.ny.us.ibm.com ([32.97.182.143]:49193 "EHLO e3.ny.us.ibm.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754762Ab0I1SGt (ORCPT ); Tue, 28 Sep 2010 14:06:49 -0400 Message-ID: <4CA22EA2.8060307@austin.ibm.com> Date: Tue, 28 Sep 2010 13:06:26 -0500 From: Nathan Fontenot User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.9.1.12) Gecko/20100915 Thunderbird/3.0.8 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Dave Hansen CC: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org, linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org, Greg KH , KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki 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 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org 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 >