Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1756363Ab2JQKrv (ORCPT ); Wed, 17 Oct 2012 06:47:51 -0400 Received: from cn.fujitsu.com ([222.73.24.84]:12958 "EHLO song.cn.fujitsu.com" rhost-flags-OK-FAIL-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752773Ab2JQKrt (ORCPT ); Wed, 17 Oct 2012 06:47:49 -0400 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.80,599,1344182400"; d="scan'208";a="6016820" Message-ID: <507E7FC2.8@cn.fujitsu.com> Date: Wed, 17 Oct 2012 17:52:02 +0800 From: Wen Congyang User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux x86_64; en-US; rv:1.9.1.9) Gecko/20100413 Fedora/3.0.4-2.fc13 Thunderbird/3.0.4 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: KOSAKI Motohiro , Yasuaki Ishimatsu CC: x86@kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org, rientjes@google.com, liuj97@gmail.com, len.brown@intel.com, cl@linux.com, minchan.kim@gmail.com, akpm@linux-foundation.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/4] acpi,memory-hotplug : add memory offline code to acpi_memory_device_remove() References: <506C0AE8.40702@jp.fujitsu.com> <506C0C53.60205@jp.fujitsu.com> <50727984.20401@cn.fujitsu.com> <507E54AA.2080806@cn.fujitsu.com> <507E75AA.2000605@cn.fujitsu.com> In-Reply-To: X-MIMETrack: Itemize by SMTP Server on mailserver/fnst(Release 8.5.3|September 15, 2011) at 2012/10/17 17:46:01, Serialize by Router on mailserver/fnst(Release 8.5.3|September 15, 2011) at 2012/10/17 17:46:11, Serialize complete at 2012/10/17 17:46:11 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1941 Lines: 48 At 10/17/2012 05:18 PM, KOSAKI Motohiro Wrote: >>>>>> Hmm, it doesn't move the code. It just reuse the code in acpi_memory_powerdown_device(). >>>>> >>>>> Even if reuse or not reuse, you changed the behavior. If any changes >>>>> has no good rational, you cannot get an ack. >>>> >>>> I don't understand this? IIRC, the behavior isn't changed. >>> >>> Heh, please explain why do you think so. >> >> We just introduce a function, and move codes from acpi_memory_disable_device() to the new >> function. We call the new function in acpi_memory_disable_device(), so the function >> acpi_memory_disable_device()'s behavior isn't changed. >> >> Maybe I don't understand what do you want to say. > > Ok, now you agreed you moved the code, yes? So then, you should explain why > your code moving makes zero impact other acpi_memory_disable_device() caller. We just move the code, and don't change the acpi_memory_disable_device()'s behavior. I look it the change again, and found some diffs: 1. we treat !info->enabled as error, while it isn't a error without this patch 2. we remove memory info from the list, it is a bug fix because we free the memory that stores memory info.(I have sent a patch to fix this bug, and it is in akpm's tree now) I guess you mean 1 will change the behavior. In the last version, I don't do it. Ishimatsu changes this and I don't notify this. To Ishimatsu: Why do you change this? Thanks Wen Congyang > -- > 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/