| Message ID | 20190329082915.19763-2-bhe@redhat.com (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| State | New, archived |
| Headers | show |
| Series | [v3,1/2] mm/sparse: Clean up the obsolete code comment | expand |
On Fri 29-03-19 16:29:15, 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. I have tried to explain that the naming is mostly a relict from the past than really a misleading name http://lkml.kernel.org/r/20190326093315.GL28406@dhcp22.suse.cz Maybe it would be good to reflect that in the changelog > Signed-off-by: Baoquan He <bhe@redhat.com> btw. I've acked the previous version as well. > --- > v2->v3: > Rename the parameter to 'start_section_nr' from 'sec'. > > drivers/base/memory.c | 7 ++++--- > 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/drivers/base/memory.c b/drivers/base/memory.c > index cb8347500ce2..9ea972b2ae79 100644 > --- a/drivers/base/memory.c > +++ b/drivers/base/memory.c > @@ -231,13 +231,14 @@ 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 start_section_nr, 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(start_section_nr); > > switch (action) { > case MEM_ONLINE: > @@ -251,7 +252,7 @@ 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__, start_section_nr, action, action); > ret = -EINVAL; > } > > -- > 2.17.2 >
On 03/29/19 at 10:13am, Michal Hocko wrote: > On Fri 29-03-19 16:29:15, 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. > > I have tried to explain that the naming is mostly a relict from the past > than really a misleading name http://lkml.kernel.org/r/20190326093315.GL28406@dhcp22.suse.cz > Maybe it would be good to reflect that in the changelog > > > Signed-off-by: Baoquan He <bhe@redhat.com> > > btw. I've acked the previous version as well. Sure, will rewrite the log and add people's Acked-by tag. Thanks. > > > --- > > v2->v3: > > Rename the parameter to 'start_section_nr' from 'sec'. > > > > drivers/base/memory.c | 7 ++++--- > > 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-) > > > > diff --git a/drivers/base/memory.c b/drivers/base/memory.c > > index cb8347500ce2..9ea972b2ae79 100644 > > --- a/drivers/base/memory.c > > +++ b/drivers/base/memory.c > > @@ -231,13 +231,14 @@ 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 start_section_nr, 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(start_section_nr); > > > > switch (action) { > > case MEM_ONLINE: > > @@ -251,7 +252,7 @@ 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__, start_section_nr, action, action); > > ret = -EINVAL; > > } > > > > -- > > 2.17.2 > > > > -- > Michal Hocko > SUSE Labs
On Fri, Mar 29, 2019 at 10:13:25AM +0100, Michal Hocko wrote: > On Fri 29-03-19 16:29:15, 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. > > I have tried to explain that the naming is mostly a relict from the past > than really a misleading name http://lkml.kernel.org/r/20190326093315.GL28406@dhcp22.suse.cz > Maybe it would be good to reflect that in the changelog I think that phys_device variable in remove_memory_section() is also a relict from the past, and it is no longer used. Neither node_id variable is used. Actually, unregister_memory_section() sets those two to 0 no matter what. Since we are cleaning up, I wonder if we can go a bit further and we can get rid of that as well.
On 03/29/19 at 10:37am, Oscar Salvador wrote: > On Fri, Mar 29, 2019 at 10:13:25AM +0100, Michal Hocko wrote: > > On Fri 29-03-19 16:29:15, 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. > > > > I have tried to explain that the naming is mostly a relict from the past > > than really a misleading name http://lkml.kernel.org/r/20190326093315.GL28406@dhcp22.suse.cz > > Maybe it would be good to reflect that in the changelog > > I think that phys_device variable in remove_memory_section() is also a relict > from the past, and it is no longer used. > Neither node_id variable is used. > Actually, unregister_memory_section() sets those two to 0 no matter what. > > Since we are cleaning up, I wonder if we can go a bit further and we can get > rid of that as well. Yes, certainly. I would like to post a new one to carry this.
diff --git a/drivers/base/memory.c b/drivers/base/memory.c index cb8347500ce2..9ea972b2ae79 100644 --- a/drivers/base/memory.c +++ b/drivers/base/memory.c @@ -231,13 +231,14 @@ 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 start_section_nr, 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(start_section_nr); switch (action) { case MEM_ONLINE: @@ -251,7 +252,7 @@ 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__, start_section_nr, 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> --- v2->v3: Rename the parameter to 'start_section_nr' from 'sec'. drivers/base/memory.c | 7 ++++--- 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)