On Wed, Jun 27, 2012 at 11:13 AM, Tejun Heo <tj@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 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.
Good, this one should go to 3.5, right?
>
> * "[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 */
> }
ok, will check it.
>
> * "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?
yes.
Thanks
Yinghai
--
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