| Message ID | 20190326090227.3059-5-bhe@redhat.com (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| State | New, archived |
| Headers | show |
| Series | Clean up comments and codes in sparse_add_one_section() | expand |
On Tue, Mar 26, 2019 at 10:02 AM Baoquan He <bhe@redhat.com> wrote: > > The input parameter 'phys_index' of memory_block_action() is actually > the section number, but not the phys_index of memory_block. Fix it. > > Signed-off-by: Baoquan He <bhe@redhat.com> > Cc: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org> > Cc: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@kernel.org> Reviewed-by: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com> > --- > drivers/base/memory.c | 6 +++--- > 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/drivers/base/memory.c b/drivers/base/memory.c > index cb8347500ce2..184f4f8d1b62 100644 > --- a/drivers/base/memory.c > +++ b/drivers/base/memory.c > @@ -231,13 +231,13 @@ static bool pages_correctly_probed(unsigned long start_pfn) > * OK to have direct references to sparsemem variables in here. > */ > static int > -memory_block_action(unsigned long phys_index, unsigned long action, int online_type) > +memory_block_action(unsigned long sec, unsigned long action, int online_type) > { > unsigned long start_pfn; > unsigned long nr_pages = PAGES_PER_SECTION * sections_per_block; > int ret; > > - start_pfn = section_nr_to_pfn(phys_index); > + start_pfn = section_nr_to_pfn(sec); > > switch (action) { > case MEM_ONLINE: > @@ -251,7 +251,7 @@ memory_block_action(unsigned long phys_index, unsigned long action, int online_t > break; > default: > WARN(1, KERN_WARNING "%s(%ld, %ld) unknown action: " > - "%ld\n", __func__, phys_index, action, action); > + "%ld\n", __func__, sec, action, action); > ret = -EINVAL; > } > > -- > 2.17.2 >
On Tue 26-03-19 17:02:27, Baoquan He wrote: > The input parameter 'phys_index' of memory_block_action() is actually > the section number, but not the phys_index of memory_block. Fix it. phys_index is a relict from the past and it indeed denotes the section number which is exported as phys_index via sysfs. start_section_nr would be a better name IMHO but nothing to really bike shed about. > Signed-off-by: Baoquan He <bhe@redhat.com> > Cc: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org> > Cc: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@kernel.org> Acked-by: Michal Hocko <mhocko@suse.com> > --- > drivers/base/memory.c | 6 +++--- > 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/drivers/base/memory.c b/drivers/base/memory.c > index cb8347500ce2..184f4f8d1b62 100644 > --- a/drivers/base/memory.c > +++ b/drivers/base/memory.c > @@ -231,13 +231,13 @@ static bool pages_correctly_probed(unsigned long start_pfn) > * OK to have direct references to sparsemem variables in here. > */ > static int > -memory_block_action(unsigned long phys_index, unsigned long action, int online_type) > +memory_block_action(unsigned long sec, unsigned long action, int online_type) > { > unsigned long start_pfn; > unsigned long nr_pages = PAGES_PER_SECTION * sections_per_block; > int ret; > > - start_pfn = section_nr_to_pfn(phys_index); > + start_pfn = section_nr_to_pfn(sec); > > switch (action) { > case MEM_ONLINE: > @@ -251,7 +251,7 @@ memory_block_action(unsigned long phys_index, unsigned long action, int online_t > break; > default: > WARN(1, KERN_WARNING "%s(%ld, %ld) unknown action: " > - "%ld\n", __func__, phys_index, action, action); > + "%ld\n", __func__, sec, action, action); > ret = -EINVAL; > } > > -- > 2.17.2 >
On Tue, Mar 26, 2019 at 05:02:27PM +0800, Baoquan He wrote: > The input parameter 'phys_index' of memory_block_action() is actually > the section number, but not the phys_index of memory_block. Fix it. > static int > -memory_block_action(unsigned long phys_index, unsigned long action, int online_type) > +memory_block_action(unsigned long sec, unsigned long action, int online_type) 'sec' is a bad abbreviation for 'section'. We don't use it anyhere else in the vm. Looking through include/, I see it used as an abbreviation for second, security, ELF section, and section of a book. Nowhere as a memory block section. Please use an extra four letters for this parameter.
On 03/26/19 at 04:43am, Matthew Wilcox wrote: > On Tue, Mar 26, 2019 at 05:02:27PM +0800, Baoquan He wrote: > > The input parameter 'phys_index' of memory_block_action() is actually > > the section number, but not the phys_index of memory_block. Fix it. > > > static int > > -memory_block_action(unsigned long phys_index, unsigned long action, int online_type) > > +memory_block_action(unsigned long sec, unsigned long action, int online_type) > > 'sec' is a bad abbreviation for 'section'. We don't use it anyhere else > in the vm. Hmm, here 'sec' is in a particular context, we may not confuse it with other abbreviation. Since Michal also complained about it, seems an update is needed. I will change it to start_section_nr as Michal suggested. Thanks. > > Looking through include/, I see it used as an abbreviation for second, > security, ELF section, and section of a book. Nowhere as a memory > block section. Please use an extra four letters for this parameter.
diff --git a/drivers/base/memory.c b/drivers/base/memory.c index cb8347500ce2..184f4f8d1b62 100644 --- a/drivers/base/memory.c +++ b/drivers/base/memory.c @@ -231,13 +231,13 @@ static bool pages_correctly_probed(unsigned long start_pfn) * OK to have direct references to sparsemem variables in here. */ static int -memory_block_action(unsigned long phys_index, unsigned long action, int online_type) +memory_block_action(unsigned long sec, unsigned long action, int online_type) { unsigned long start_pfn; unsigned long nr_pages = PAGES_PER_SECTION * sections_per_block; int ret; - start_pfn = section_nr_to_pfn(phys_index); + start_pfn = section_nr_to_pfn(sec); switch (action) { case MEM_ONLINE: @@ -251,7 +251,7 @@ memory_block_action(unsigned long phys_index, unsigned long action, int online_t break; default: WARN(1, KERN_WARNING "%s(%ld, %ld) unknown action: " - "%ld\n", __func__, phys_index, action, action); + "%ld\n", __func__, sec, action, action); ret = -EINVAL; }
The input parameter 'phys_index' of memory_block_action() is actually the section number, but not the phys_index of memory_block. Fix it. Signed-off-by: Baoquan He <bhe@redhat.com> Cc: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org> Cc: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@kernel.org> --- drivers/base/memory.c | 6 +++--- 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)