On Tuesday, January 08, 2013 04:29:35 PM Davidlohr Bueso wrote: > On Wed, 2013-01-09 at 01:34 +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > > On Tuesday, January 08, 2013 04:15:56 PM Davidlohr Bueso wrote: > > > Just as with the other memory affinity flags, report > > > non-volatile memory with ACPI debug. > > > > Looks kind of good, but -> > > > > > Signed-off-by: Davidlohr Bueso <[email protected]> > > > --- > > > drivers/acpi/numa.c | 4 +++- > > > 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) > > > > > > diff --git a/drivers/acpi/numa.c b/drivers/acpi/numa.c > > > index cb31298..68077ac 100644 > > > --- a/drivers/acpi/numa.c > > > +++ b/drivers/acpi/numa.c > > > @@ -116,12 +116,14 @@ acpi_table_print_srat_entry(struct > > > acpi_subtable_header *header) > > > struct acpi_srat_mem_affinity *p = > > > (struct acpi_srat_mem_affinity *)header; > > > ACPI_DEBUG_PRINT((ACPI_DB_INFO, > > > - "SRAT Memory (0x%lx length 0x%lx) in > > > proximity domain %d %s%s\n", > > > + "SRAT Memory (0x%lx length 0x%lx) in > > > proximity domain %d %s%s%s\n", > > > (unsigned long)p->base_address, > > > (unsigned long)p->length, > > > p->proximity_domain, > > > (p->flags & ACPI_SRAT_MEM_ENABLED)? > > > "enabled" : "disabled", > > > + (p->flags & > > > ACPI_SRAT_MEM_NON_VOLATILE)? > > > + " non-volatile" : "", > > > > -> why did you put non-volatile before hot-pluggable? > > No particular reason. Should I send a v2 with non-volatile at the end?
Yes, please. Thanks, Rafael -- I speak only for myself. Rafael J. Wysocki, Intel Open Source Technology Center. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [email protected] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
