Hello, Yinghai.
Sorry about the delay. I'm in bug storm somehow. :(
On Fri, Jun 22, 2012 at 07:14:43PM -0700, Yinghai Lu wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 22, 2012 at 12:29 PM, Tejun Heo <tj@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > I wish we had a single call - say, memblock_die(), or whatever - so
> > that there's a clear indication that memblock usage is done, but yeah
> > maybe another day. Will review the patch itself. BTW, can't you post
> > patches inline anymore? Attaching is better than corrupt but is still
> > a bit annoying for review.
>
> please check the three patches:
Heh, reviewing is cumbersome this way but here are my comments.
* "[PATCH] memblock: free allocated memblock_reserved_regions later"
looks okay to me.
* "[PATCH] memblock: Free allocated memblock.memory.regions" makes me
wonder whether it would be better to have something like the
following instead.
typedef void memblock_free_region_fn_t(unsigned long start, unsigned size);
void memblock_free_regions(memblock_free_region_fn_t free_fn)
{
/* call free_fn() on reserved and memory regions arrays */
/* clear both structures so that any further usage triggers warning */
}
* "memblock: Add checking about illegal using memblock".
Hmm... wouldn't it be better to be less explicit? I think it's
adding too much opencoded identical checks. Maybe implement a
common check & warning function?
Thanks.
--
tejun
--
To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
the body to majordomo@xxxxxxxxx. For more info on Linux MM,
see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@xxxxxxxxx";> email@xxxxxxxxx </a>