On Wed, Oct 17, 2012 at 2:24 AM, Wen Congyang <we...@cn.fujitsu.com> wrote:
> At 10/12/2012 06:33 AM, KOSAKI Motohiro Wrote:
>> On Thu, Oct 11, 2012 at 1:26 AM, Yasuaki Ishimatsu
>> <isimatu.yasu...@jp.fujitsu.com> wrote:
>>> 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."
>>>
>>> The reason is node's device struct does not have a release() function.
>>>
>>> So the patch registers node_device_release() to the device's release()
>>> function for suppressing the warning message. Additionally, the patch adds
>>> memset() to initialize a node struct into register_node(). Because the node
>>> struct is part of node_devices[] array and it cannot be freed by
>>> node_device_release(). So if system reuses the node struct, it has a
>>> garbage.
>>>
>>> CC: David Rientjes <rient...@google.com>
>>> CC: Jiang Liu <liu...@gmail.com>
>>> Cc: Minchan Kim <minchan....@gmail.com>
>>> CC: Andrew Morton <a...@linux-foundation.org>
>>> CC: KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motoh...@jp.fujitsu.com>
>>> Signed-off-by: Yasuaki Ishimatsu <isimatu.yasu...@jp.fujitsu.com>
>>> Signed-off-by: Wen Congyang <we...@cn.fujitsu.com>
>>> ---
>>> drivers/base/node.c | 11 +++++++++++
>>> 1 file changed, 11 insertions(+)
>>>
>>> Index: linux-3.6/drivers/base/node.c
>>> ===================================================================
>>> --- linux-3.6.orig/drivers/base/node.c 2012-10-11 10:04:02.149758748 +0900
>>> +++ linux-3.6/drivers/base/node.c 2012-10-11 10:20:34.111806931 +0900
>>> @@ -252,6 +252,14 @@ static inline void hugetlb_register_node
>>> static inline void hugetlb_unregister_node(struct node *node) {}
>>> #endif
>>>
>>> +static void node_device_release(struct device *dev)
>>> +{
>>> +#if defined(CONFIG_MEMORY_HOTPLUG_SPARSE) && defined(CONFIG_HUGETLBFS)
>>> + struct node *node_dev = to_node(dev);
>>> +
>>> + flush_work(&node_dev->node_work);
>>> +#endif
>>> +}
>>
>> The patch description don't explain why this flush_work() is needed.
>
> If the node is onlined after it is offlined, we will clear the memory,
> so we should flush_work() before node_dev is set to 0.
So then, it is irrelevant from warning supressness. You should make an
another patch.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
