Re: mmotm 2015-01-22-15-04: qemu failure due to 'mm: memcontrol: remove unnecessary soft limit tree node test'

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On 01/23/2015 12:20 PM, Christoph Lameter wrote:
On Fri, 23 Jan 2015, Johannes Weiner wrote:

         struct mem_cgroup_tree_per_node *rtpn;
         struct mem_cgroup_tree_per_zone *rtpz;
-       int tmp, node, zone;
+       int node, zone;

         for_each_node(node) {

Do for_each_online_node(node) {

instead?


Wouldn't that have unintended consequences ? So far
rb tree nodes are allocated even if a node not online;
the above would change that. Are you saying it is
unnecessary to initialize rb tree nodes if the node
is not online ?

Not that I have any idea what is correct, it just seems odd
that the existing code would do all this allocation if it is not
necessary.

Guenter

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-fsdevel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html




[Index of Archives]     [Linux Ext4 Filesystem]     [Union Filesystem]     [Filesystem Testing]     [Ceph Users]     [Ecryptfs]     [AutoFS]     [Kernel Newbies]     [Share Photos]     [Security]     [Netfilter]     [Bugtraq]     [Yosemite News]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux Security]     [Linux Cachefs]     [Reiser Filesystem]     [Linux RAID]     [Samba]     [Device Mapper]     [CEPH Development]
  Powered by Linux