Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752125Ab2JAGzK (ORCPT ); Mon, 1 Oct 2012 02:55:10 -0400 Received: from fgwmail5.fujitsu.co.jp ([192.51.44.35]:49275 "EHLO fgwmail5.fujitsu.co.jp" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752007Ab2JAGzI (ORCPT ); Mon, 1 Oct 2012 02:55:08 -0400 X-SecurityPolicyCheck: OK by SHieldMailChecker v1.7.4 Message-ID: <50693E30.3010006@jp.fujitsu.com> Date: Mon, 1 Oct 2012 15:54:40 +0900 From: Yasuaki Ishimatsu User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 5.1; rv:15.0) Gecko/20120907 Thunderbird/15.0.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: KOSAKI Motohiro CC: , , , , , , , , , Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/4] memory-hotplug: add node_device_release References: <1348724705-23779-1-git-send-email-wency@cn.fujitsu.com> <1348724705-23779-3-git-send-email-wency@cn.fujitsu.com> <5064EA5A.3080905@jp.fujitsu.com> <5064FDCA.1020504@jp.fujitsu.com> <5065740A.2000502@jp.fujitsu.com> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 2211 Lines: 66 Hi Kosaki-san, 2012/09/29 7:19, KOSAKI Motohiro wrote: >>>> I don't understand it. How can we get rid of the warning? >>> >>> See cpu_device_release() for example. >> >> If we implement a function like cpu_device_release(), the warning >> disappears. But the comment says in the function "Never copy this way...". >> So I think it is illegal way. > > What does "illegal" mean? The "illegal" means the code should not be mimicked. > You still haven't explain any benefit of your code. If there is zero > benefit, just kill it. > I believe everybody think so. > > Again, Which benefit do you have? The patch has a benefit to delets a warning message. > >>>>> Why do we need this node_device_release() implementation? >>>> >>>> I think that this is a manner of releasing object related kobject. >>> >>> No. Usually we never call memset() from release callback. >> >> What we want to release is a part of array, not a pointer. >> Therefore, there is only this way instead of kfree(). > > Why? Before your patch, we don't have memset() and did work it. If we does not apply the patch, a warning message is shown. So I think it did not work well. > I can't understand what mean "only way". For deleting a warning message, I created a node_device_release(). In the manner of releasing kobject, the function frees a object related to the kobject. So most functions calls kfree() for releasing it. In node_device_release(), we need to free a node struct. If the node struct is pointer, I can free it by kfree. But the node struct is a part of node_devices[] array. I cannot free it. So I filled the node struct with 0. But you think it is not good. Do you have a good solution? Thanks, Yasuaki Ishimatsu > -- > 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/ > -- 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/