> I have the reason to have to fill the node struct with 0 by memset.
> The node is a part of node struct array (node_devices[]).
> If we add empty release function for suppressing warning,
> some data remains in the node struct after hot removing memory.
> So if we re-hot adds the memory, the node
Hi Kosaki-san,
2012/10/02 3:12, KOSAKI Motohiro wrote:
On Mon, Oct 1, 2012 at 2:54 AM, Yasuaki Ishimatsu
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 fun
On Mon, Oct 1, 2012 at 2:54 AM, Yasuaki Ishimatsu
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_
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...".
>>> 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 "il
Hi Kosaki-san,
2012/09/28 10:37, KOSAKI Motohiro wrote:
Moreover, your explanation is still insufficient. Even if
node_device_release() is empty function, we can get rid of the
warning.
I don't understand it. How can we get rid of the warning?
See cpu_device_release() for example.
If we i
>> Moreover, your explanation is still insufficient. Even if
>> node_device_release() is empty function, we can get rid of the
>> warning.
>
>
> I don't understand it. How can we get rid of the warning?
See cpu_device_release() for example.
>> Why do we need this node_device_release() implement
Hi Kosaki-san,
2012/09/28 10:13, KOSAKI Motohiro wrote:
On Thu, Sep 27, 2012 at 8:07 PM, Yasuaki Ishimatsu
wrote:
Hi Kosaki-san,
2012/09/28 5:13, KOSAKI Motohiro wrote:
On Thu, Sep 27, 2012 at 1:45 AM, wrote:
From: Yasuaki Ishimatsu
When calling unregister_node(), the function shows
On Thu, Sep 27, 2012 at 8:07 PM, Yasuaki Ishimatsu
wrote:
> Hi Kosaki-san,
>
>
> 2012/09/28 5:13, KOSAKI Motohiro wrote:
>>
>> On Thu, Sep 27, 2012 at 1:45 AM, wrote:
>>>
>>> From: Yasuaki Ishimatsu
>>>
>>> When calling unregister_node(), the function shows following message at
>>> device_relea
Hi Kosaki-san,
2012/09/28 5:13, KOSAKI Motohiro wrote:
On Thu, Sep 27, 2012 at 1:45 AM, wrote:
From: Yasuaki Ishimatsu
When calling unregister_node(), the function shows following message at
device_release().
This description doesn't have the "following message".
Device 'node2' does
On Thu, Sep 27, 2012 at 1:45 AM, wrote:
> From: Yasuaki Ishimatsu
>
> When calling unregister_node(), the function shows following message at
> device_release().
This description doesn't have the "following message".
> Device 'node2' does not have a release() function, it is broken and must b
On 09/27/2012 01:45 PM, we...@cn.fujitsu.com wrote:
From: Yasuaki Ishimatsu
When calling unregister_node(), the function shows following message at
device_release().
Device 'node2' does not have a release() function, it is broken and must be
fixed.
So the patch implements node_device_release(
From: Yasuaki Ishimatsu
When calling unregister_node(), the function shows following message at
device_release().
Device 'node2' does not have a release() function, it is broken and must be
fixed.
So the patch implements node_device_release()
CC: David Rientjes
CC: Jiang Liu
CC: Len Brown
C
13 matches
Mail list logo
