Re: [PATCH 02/21] memblock, numa: Introduce flag into memblock.

[Tang Chen]

On 07/24/2013 03:09 AM, Tejun Heo wrote:
> Hello,
>
> On Fri, Jul 19, 2013 at 03:59:15PM +0800, Tang Chen wrote:
> > +#define MEMBLK_FLAGS_DEFAULT	0x0	/* default flag */
>
> Please don't do this.  Just clearing the struct as zero is enough.
>
> > @@ -439,12 +449,14 @@ repeat:
> >   int __init_memblock memblock_add_node(phys_addr_t base, phys_addr_t size,
> >   				       int nid)
> >   {
> > -	return memblock_add_region(&memblock.memory, base, size, nid);
> > +	return memblock_add_region(&memblock.memory, base, size,
> > +				   nid, MEMBLK_FLAGS_DEFAULT);
>
> And just use zero for no flag.  Doing something like the above gets
> weird with actual flags.  e.g. if you add a flag, say, MEMBLK_HOTPLUG,
> should it be MEMBLK_FLAGS_DEFAULT | MEMBLK_HOTPLUG or just
> MEMBLK_HOTPLUG?  If latter, the knowledge that DEFAULT is zero is
> implicit, and, if so, why do it at all?

OK, will remove MEMBLK_FLAGS_DEFAULT, and use 0 by default.

> > +static int __init_memblock memblock_reserve_region(phys_addr_t base,
> > +						   phys_addr_t size,
> > +						   int nid,
> > +						   unsigned long flags)
> >   {
> >   	struct memblock_type *_rgn =&memblock.reserved;
> >
> > -	memblock_dbg("memblock_reserve: [%#016llx-%#016llx] %pF\n",
> > +	memblock_dbg("memblock_reserve: [%#016llx-%#016llx] with flags %#016lx %pF\n",
>
> Let's please drop "with" and do we really need to print full 16
> digits?

Sure, will remove "with". But I think printing out the full flags is batter.
The output seems more tidy.


Thanks.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/