On Tue, Mar 23, 2010 at 10:17:49AM -0700, Yinghai Lu wrote: > On 03/23/2010 06:18 AM, Paul Mundt wrote: > > On Tue, Mar 23, 2010 at 11:42:41AM +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote: > >> also, i'd suggest to shorten region_array_size to region_size (we know it's an > >> array), so it would become: > >> > >> lmb.memory.region = lmb_memory_region; > >> lmb.memory.region_size = ARRAY_SIZE(lmb_memory_region); > >> > > I don't mean to be pedantic, but the LMB code already has a lot of > > region.size references so region_size looks a bit awkward. All of the > > accessors in linux/lmb.h use region_nr as the array index, so perhaps > > nr_regions would be less ambiguous. > > @@ -26,7 +26,8 @@ struct lmb_property { > struct lmb_region { > unsigned long cnt; > u64 size; > - struct lmb_property region[MAX_LMB_REGIONS+1]; > + struct lmb_property *region; > + unsigned long region_array_size; > }; > > cnt is number of slots used. > size is memory size > I'm fully aware of what each of these things are, and I have no idea what any of that has to do with the point I raised above. > can we use rgn_sz for region array size? > No. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-arch" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html