Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753926Ab3CVAku (ORCPT ); Thu, 21 Mar 2013 20:40:50 -0400 Received: from g1t0026.austin.hp.com ([15.216.28.33]:16093 "EHLO g1t0026.austin.hp.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752706Ab3CVAkt (ORCPT ); Thu, 21 Mar 2013 20:40:49 -0400 Message-ID: <1363912171.11659.12.camel@misato.fc.hp.com> Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] ACPI,acpi_memhotplug: Remove acpi_memory_info->failed bit From: Toshi Kani To: Yasuaki Ishimatsu Cc: rjw@sisk.pl, linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org, tangchen@cn.fujitsu.com, wency@cn.fujitsu.com, laijs@cn.fujitsu.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Date: Thu, 21 Mar 2013 18:29:31 -0600 In-Reply-To: <514A8EF3.90203@jp.fujitsu.com> References: <514022BF.3080303@jp.fujitsu.com> <1363186213.12845.174.camel@misato.fc.hp.com> <514679BC.5020700@jp.fujitsu.com> <1363705437.11659.5.camel@misato.fc.hp.com> <514A4CCD.6000608@jp.fujitsu.com> <514A8E3C.1050902@jp.fujitsu.com> <514A8EF3.90203@jp.fujitsu.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" X-Mailer: Evolution 3.4.4 (3.4.4-2.fc17) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 2320 Lines: 67 On Thu, 2013-03-21 at 13:39 +0900, Yasuaki Ishimatsu wrote: > acpi_memory_info has enabled bit and failed bit for controlling memory > hotplug. But we don't need to keep both bits. > > The patch removes acpi_memory_info->failed bit. > > Signed-off-by: yasuaki ishimatsu > --- > > v2 : Changed a based kernel from linux-3.9-rc2 to linux-pm.git/bleeding-edge. > > --- > drivers/acpi/acpi_memhotplug.c | 13 +------------ > 1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/drivers/acpi/acpi_memhotplug.c b/drivers/acpi/acpi_memhotplug.c > index ea78988..597cd65 100644 > --- a/drivers/acpi/acpi_memhotplug.c > +++ b/drivers/acpi/acpi_memhotplug.c > @@ -73,7 +73,6 @@ struct acpi_memory_info { > unsigned short caching; /* memory cache attribute */ > unsigned short write_protect; /* memory read/write attribute */ > unsigned int enabled:1; > - unsigned int failed:1; > }; > > struct acpi_memory_device { > @@ -201,10 +200,8 @@ static int acpi_memory_enable_device(struct acpi_memory_device *mem_device) > * returns -EEXIST. If add_memory() returns the other error, it > * means that this memory block is not used by the kernel. > */ > - if (result && result != -EEXIST) { > - info->failed = 1; > + if (result && result != -EEXIST) > continue; > - } > > info->enabled = 1; > > @@ -238,15 +235,7 @@ static int acpi_memory_remove_memory(struct acpi_memory_device *mem_device) > nid = acpi_get_node(mem_device->device->handle); > > list_for_each_entry_safe(info, n, &mem_device->res_list, list) { > - if (info->failed) > - /* The kernel does not use this memory block */ > - continue; > - > if (!info->enabled) > - /* > - * The kernel uses this memory block, but it may be not > - * managed by us. > - */ > return -EBUSY; Shouldn't this case (!info->enabled) continue since it is the same as info->failed before? -EBUSY was previously used for the -EEXIST case, which is no longer a failure case with this patchset. Thanks, -Toshi -- 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/