On Fri, 2010-07-16 at 13:23 -0500, Nathan Fontenot wrote:
> >> -if (mem->state != from_state_req) {
> >> -ret = -EINVAL;
> >> -goto out;
> >> +list_for_each_entry(mbs, &mem->sections, next) {
> >> +if (mbs->state != from_state_req)
> >> +
On Fri, 2010-07-16 at 13:23 -0500, Nathan Fontenot wrote:
> > If the memory_block's state was inferred to be the same as each
> > memory_block_section, couldn't we just keep a start and end phys_index
> > in the memory_block, and get away from having memory_block_sections at
> > all?
>
> Oooohhh..
On 07/16/2010 12:15 PM, Dave Hansen wrote:
> On Thu, 2010-07-15 at 13:37 -0500, Nathan Fontenot wrote:
>> @@ -123,13 +130,20 @@
>> static ssize_t show_mem_removable(struct sys_device *dev,
>> struct sysdev_attribute *attr, char *buf)
>> {
>> +struct memory_block *mem;
>>
On Thu, 2010-07-15 at 13:37 -0500, Nathan Fontenot wrote:
> @@ -123,13 +130,20 @@
> static ssize_t show_mem_removable(struct sys_device *dev,
> struct sysdev_attribute *attr, char *buf)
> {
> + struct memory_block *mem;
> + struct memory_block_section *mbs;
> u
Thanks for taking a look a this Kame, answers below...
-Nathan
On 07/15/2010 07:06 PM, KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki wrote:
> On Thu, 15 Jul 2010 13:37:51 -0500
> Nathan Fontenot wrote:
>
>> Split the memory_block struct into a memory_block
>> struct to cover each sysfs directory and a new memory_block_sec
On Thu, 15 Jul 2010 13:37:51 -0500
Nathan Fontenot wrote:
> Split the memory_block struct into a memory_block
> struct to cover each sysfs directory and a new memory_block_section
> struct for each memory section covered by the sysfs directory.
> This change allows for creation of memory sysfs di
Split the memory_block struct into a memory_block
struct to cover each sysfs directory and a new memory_block_section
struct for each memory section covered by the sysfs directory.
This change allows for creation of memory sysfs directories that
can span multiple memory sections.
This can be benef
