On Thu, Jul 19, 2012 at 09:57:50AM -0700, Tejun Heo wrote: > 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 IIUC your previous reply, archs can use any fields during boot. If so, we need full coverage for catching it. > that fields unused by boot code is collected at the top so that it can > be memset after certain offset? If the fields touched by boot are limited, it's good idea. Let me ask a question. What fields are used by boot code before calling free_area_init_node (excpet struct bootmem_data *bdata)? > > 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. Of course, it seems all archs seems to zero-out already as I mentioned (Not sure, MIPS) but Andrew doesn't want it. Andrew? > > 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> -- Kind regards, Minchan Kim -- 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>