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
