lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2013]   [Jan]   [8]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRe: [PATCH] ACPI: SRAT: report non-volatile memory in debug
From
Date
On Wed, 2013-01-09 at 01:34 +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Tuesday, January 08, 2013 04:15:56 PM Davidlohr Bueso wrote:
> > Just as with the other memory affinity flags, report
> > non-volatile memory with ACPI debug.
>
> Looks kind of good, but ->
>
> > Signed-off-by: Davidlohr Bueso <davidlohr.bueso@hp.com>
> > ---
> > drivers/acpi/numa.c | 4 +++-
> > 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/drivers/acpi/numa.c b/drivers/acpi/numa.c
> > index cb31298..68077ac 100644
> > --- a/drivers/acpi/numa.c
> > +++ b/drivers/acpi/numa.c
> > @@ -116,12 +116,14 @@ acpi_table_print_srat_entry(struct acpi_subtable_header *header)
> > struct acpi_srat_mem_affinity *p =
> > (struct acpi_srat_mem_affinity *)header;
> > ACPI_DEBUG_PRINT((ACPI_DB_INFO,
> > - "SRAT Memory (0x%lx length 0x%lx) in proximity domain %d %s%s\n",
> > + "SRAT Memory (0x%lx length 0x%lx) in proximity domain %d %s%s%s\n",
> > (unsigned long)p->base_address,
> > (unsigned long)p->length,
> > p->proximity_domain,
> > (p->flags & ACPI_SRAT_MEM_ENABLED)?
> > "enabled" : "disabled",
> > + (p->flags & ACPI_SRAT_MEM_NON_VOLATILE)?
> > + " non-volatile" : "",
>
> -> why did you put non-volatile before hot-pluggable?

No particular reason. Should I send a v2 with non-volatile at the end?

>
> > (p->flags & ACPI_SRAT_MEM_HOT_PLUGGABLE)?
> > " hot-pluggable" : ""));
> > }
>
> Rafael
>
>




\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2013-01-09 02:21    [W:0.033 / U:0.008 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site