On 03/29/19 at 10:37am, Oscar Salvador wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 29, 2019 at 10:13:25AM +0100, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > On Fri 29-03-19 16:29:15, Baoquan He wrote:
> > > The input parameter 'phys_index' of memory_block_action() is actually
> > > the section number, but not the phys_index of
On Fri, Mar 29, 2019 at 10:13:25AM +0100, Michal Hocko wrote:
> On Fri 29-03-19 16:29:15, Baoquan He wrote:
> > The input parameter 'phys_index' of memory_block_action() is actually
> > the section number, but not the phys_index of memory_block. Fix it.
>
> I have tried to explain that the naming
On 03/29/19 at 10:13am, Michal Hocko wrote:
> On Fri 29-03-19 16:29:15, Baoquan He wrote:
> > The input parameter 'phys_index' of memory_block_action() is actually
> > the section number, but not the phys_index of memory_block. Fix it.
>
> I have tried to explain that the naming is mostly a
On Fri 29-03-19 16:29:15, Baoquan He wrote:
> The input parameter 'phys_index' of memory_block_action() is actually
> the section number, but not the phys_index of memory_block. Fix it.
I have tried to explain that the naming is mostly a relict from the past
than really a misleading name
The input parameter 'phys_index' of memory_block_action() is actually
the section number, but not the phys_index of memory_block. Fix it.
Signed-off-by: Baoquan He
---
v2->v3:
Rename the parameter to 'start_section_nr' from 'sec'.
drivers/base/memory.c | 7 ---
1 file changed, 4
5 matches
Mail list logo