On Tue, 17 Sep 2013 07:29:41 +0800 Wanpeng Li <liwanp@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >> to set it again in __vmalloc_area_node.
> >>
> >> Reviewed-by: Zhang Yanfei <zhangyanfei@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> >> Signed-off-by: Wanpeng Li <liwanp@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> >> ---
> >> mm/vmalloc.c | 1 -
> >> 1 file changed, 1 deletion(-)
> >>
> >> diff --git a/mm/vmalloc.c b/mm/vmalloc.c
> >> index 1074543..d78d117 100644
> >> --- a/mm/vmalloc.c
> >> +++ b/mm/vmalloc.c
> >> @@ -1566,7 +1566,6 @@ static void *__vmalloc_area_node(struct vm_struct *area, gfp_t gfp_mask,
> >> pages = kmalloc_node(array_size, nested_gfp, node);
> >> }
> >> area->pages = pages;
> >> - area->caller = caller;
> >> if (!area->pages) {
> >> remove_vm_area(area->addr);
> >> kfree(area);
> >
> >Then, __vmalloc_area_node() no longer need "caller" argument. It can use area->caller instead.
> >
>
> Thanks for pointing out, I will update it in next version.
I've seen so many versions of this patchset that my head has spun right
off. I'm not at all confident that I have the latest version and I'm
certainly not confident that I've kept up with the ack/nack trail.
So I think I'll drop everything and will await that "next version".
Please be careful to Cc everyone who was involved and that the
acked/reviewed-by paperwork is up to date.
Thanks.
--
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>