On 01/15/2013 04:24 PM, Cody P Schafer wrote: > Patches that follow add a inline function zone_end_pfn(), which > conflicts with the naming of a local variable in isolate_freepages(). > > Rename the variable so it does not conflict. It's probably worth a note here that you _will_ be migrating this use over to the new function anyway. > @@ -706,7 +706,7 @@ static void isolate_freepages(struct zone *zone, > * only scans within a pageblock > */ > end_pfn = ALIGN(pfn + 1, pageblock_nr_pages); > - end_pfn = min(end_pfn, zone_end_pfn); > + end_pfn = min(end_pfn, z_end_pfn); Is there any reason not to just completely get rid of z_end_pfn (in the later patches after you introduce zone_end_pfn() of course): > + end_pfn = min(end_pfn, zone_end_pfn(zone)); I wouldn't be completely opposed to you just introducing zone_end_pfn() and doing all the replacements in a single patch. It would make it somewhat easier to review, and it would also save the juggling you have to do with this one. -- 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>