On Tue, Sep 15, 2020 at 11:15:53AM +0200, David Hildenbrand wrote:
>On 15.09.20 11:06, Wei Yang wrote:
>> On Tue, Sep 15, 2020 at 09:35:30AM +0200, David Hildenbrand wrote:
>>>
>>>>> static int __ref try_remove_memory(int nid, u64 start, u64 size)
>>>>> {
>>>>> int rc = 0;
>>>>> @@ -1777,7 +1757,7 @@ static int __ref try_remove_memory(int nid, u64 start, u64 size)
>>>>> memblock_remove(start, size);
>>>>> }
>>>>>
>>>>> - __release_memory_resource(start, size);
>>>>> + release_mem_region_adjustable(&iomem_resource, start, size);
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Seems the only user of release_mem_region_adjustable() is here, can we move
>>>> iomem_resource into the function body? Actually, we don't iterate the resource
>>>> tree from any level. We always start from the root.
>>>
>>> You mean, making iomem_resource implicit? I can spot that something
>>> similar was done for
>>>
>>> #define devm_release_mem_region(dev, start, n) \
>>> __devm_release_region(dev, &iomem_resource, (start), (n))
>>>
>>
>> What I prefer is remove iomem_resource from the parameter list. Just use is in
>> the function body.
>>
>> For the example you listed, __release_region() would have varies of *parent*,
>> which looks reasonable to keep it here.
>
>Yeah I got that ("making iomem_resource implicit"), as I said:
>
Thanks
>>> I'll send an addon patch for that, ok? - thanks.
>
>--
>Thanks,
>
>David / dhildenb
--
Wei Yang
Help you, Help me
