Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 24 Jul 2013 10:53:10 +0800 | From | Tang Chen <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH 02/21] memblock, numa: Introduce flag into memblock. |
| |
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.
| |