On Mon, 2010-09-27 at 14:25 -0500, Nathan Fontenot wrote: > +static inline int base_memory_block_id(int section_nr) > +{ > + return section_nr / sections_per_block; > +} ... > - mutex_lock(&mem_sysfs_mutex); > - > - mem->phys_index = __section_nr(section); > + scn_nr = __section_nr(section); > + mem->phys_index = base_memory_block_id(scn_nr) * sections_per_block; I'm really regretting giving this variable such a horrid name. I suck. I think this is correct now: mem->phys_index = base_memory_block_id(scn_nr) * sections_per_block; mem->phys_index = section_nr / sections_per_block * sections_per_block; mem->phys_index = section_nr Since it gets exported to userspace this way: > +static ssize_t show_mem_start_phys_index(struct sys_device *dev, > struct sysdev_attribute *attr, char *buf) > { > struct memory_block *mem = > container_of(dev, struct memory_block, sysdev); > - return sprintf(buf, "%08lx\n", mem->phys_index / sections_per_block); > + unsigned long phys_index; > + > + phys_index = mem->start_phys_index / sections_per_block; > + return sprintf(buf, "%08lx\n", phys_index); > +} The only other thing I'd say is that we need to put phys_index out of its misery and call it what it is now: a section number. I think it's OK to call them "start/end_section_nr", at least inside the kernel. I intentionally used "phys_index" terminology in sysfs so that we _could_ eventually do this stuff and break the relationship between sections and the sysfs dirs, but I think keeping the terminology around inside the kernel is confusing now. -- Dave -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxx For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@xxxxxxxxx"> email@xxxxxxxxx </a>