Hello, On Thu, Jul 19, 2012 at 09:48:45AM +0900, Minchan Kim wrote: > > Maybe trigger warning if some fields which have to be zero aren't? > > It's not good because this causes adding new WARNING in that part > whenever we add new field in pgdat. It nullify this patch's goal. Maybe just do that on some fields? The goal is catching unlikely case where archs leave the struct with garbage data. I don't think full coverage is an absolute requirement. Or reorganize the fields such that fields unused by boot code is collected at the top so that it can be memset after certain offset? But, really, given how the structure is used, I think we're better off just making sure all archs clear them and maybe have a sanity check or two just in case. It's not like breakage on that front is gonna be subtle. 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>