From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from psmtp.com (na3sys010amx169.postini.com [74.125.245.169]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 338CB6B0068 for ; Thu, 27 Sep 2012 21:45:26 -0400 (EDT) Received: by obcva7 with SMTP id va7so3077578obc.14 for ; Thu, 27 Sep 2012 18:45:25 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <5064FDCA.1020504@jp.fujitsu.com> References: <1348724705-23779-1-git-send-email-wency@cn.fujitsu.com> <1348724705-23779-3-git-send-email-wency@cn.fujitsu.com> <5064EA5A.3080905@jp.fujitsu.com> <5064FDCA.1020504@jp.fujitsu.com> From: KOSAKI Motohiro Date: Thu, 27 Sep 2012 21:37:50 -0400 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/4] memory-hotplug: add node_device_release Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org List-ID: To: Yasuaki Ishimatsu Cc: wency@cn.fujitsu.com, linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, rientjes@google.com, liuj97@gmail.com, len.brown@intel.com, benh@kernel.crashing.org, paulus@samba.org, minchan.kim@gmail.com, akpm@linux-foundation.org >> Moreover, your explanation is still insufficient. Even if >> node_device_release() is empty function, we can get rid of the >> warning. > > > I don't understand it. How can we get rid of the warning? See cpu_device_release() for example. >> Why do we need this node_device_release() implementation? > > I think that this is a manner of releasing object related kobject. No. Usually we never call memset() from release callback. -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@kvack.org. For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . Don't email: email@kvack.org