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@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > 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-acpi" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
