On Mon, Oct 1, 2012 at 2:54 AM, Yasuaki Ishimatsu <isimatu.yasuaki@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Hi Kosaki-san, > > > 2012/09/29 7:19, KOSAKI Motohiro wrote: >>>>> >>>>> I don't understand it. How can we get rid of the warning? >>>> >>>> >>>> See cpu_device_release() for example. >>> >>> >>> If we implement a function like cpu_device_release(), the warning >>> disappears. But the comment says in the function "Never copy this >>> way...". >>> So I think it is illegal way. >> >> >> What does "illegal" mean? > > > The "illegal" means the code should not be mimicked. > > >> You still haven't explain any benefit of your code. If there is zero >> benefit, just kill it. >> I believe everybody think so. >> >> Again, Which benefit do you have? > > > The patch has a benefit to delets a warning message. > > >> >>>>>> Why do we need this node_device_release() implementation? >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> I think that this is a manner of releasing object related kobject. >>>> >>>> >>>> No. Usually we never call memset() from release callback. >>> >>> >>> What we want to release is a part of array, not a pointer. >>> Therefore, there is only this way instead of kfree(). >> >> >> Why? Before your patch, we don't have memset() and did work it. > > > If we does not apply the patch, a warning message is shown. > So I think it did not work well. > > >> I can't understand what mean "only way". > > > For deleting a warning message, I created a node_device_release(). > In the manner of releasing kobject, the function frees a object related > to the kobject. So most functions calls kfree() for releasing it. > In node_device_release(), we need to free a node struct. If the node > struct is pointer, I can free it by kfree. But the node struct is a part > of node_devices[] array. I cannot free it. So I filled the node struct > with 0. > > But you think it is not good. Do you have a good solution? Do nothing. just add empty release function and kill a warning. Obviously do nothing can't make any performance drop nor any side effect. meaningless memset() is just silly from point of cache pollution view. -- 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>