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@xxxxxx> > > --- > > 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 > > -- 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
