Displaying 3 results from an estimated 3 matches for "memblock_flags".
2020 Sep 09
2
[PATCH v2 3/7] mm/memory_hotplug: prepare passing flags to add_memory() and friends
David Hildenbrand <david at redhat.com> writes:
> On 09.09.20 09:17, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
>> On Tue, Sep 08, 2020 at 10:10:08PM +0200, David Hildenbrand wrote:
>>> We soon want to pass flags, e.g., to mark added System RAM resources.
>>> mergeable. Prepare for that.
>>
>> What are these random "flags", and how do we know what should be
2020 Sep 09
2
[PATCH v2 3/7] mm/memory_hotplug: prepare passing flags to add_memory() and friends
David Hildenbrand <david at redhat.com> writes:
> On 09.09.20 09:17, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
>> On Tue, Sep 08, 2020 at 10:10:08PM +0200, David Hildenbrand wrote:
>>> We soon want to pass flags, e.g., to mark added System RAM resources.
>>> mergeable. Prepare for that.
>>
>> What are these random "flags", and how do we know what should be
2020 Sep 09
0
[PATCH v2 3/7] mm/memory_hotplug: prepare passing flags to add_memory() and friends
...et some checking via sparse by using __bitwise, which is what
> gfp_t does. You don't actually have to use an enum for that, it works
> with #defines also.
Yeah, we seem to be using different approaches. And there is always a
way to mess things up :)
gfp_t is one (extreme) example, enum memblock_flags is another example.
I tend to prefer an enum in this particular case, because it's simple
and at least tells the user which values are expected.
Thoughts?
>
> Or you can wrap the flag in a struct, the way atomic_t does, and then
> the compiler will prevent passing plain integers in...