> On Tue, 2006-05-16 at 21:23 +0900, Yasunori Goto wrote:
> > +int arch_register_node(int num){
> > + int p_node;
> > + struct node *parent = NULL;
> > +
> > + if (!node_online(num))
> > + return 0;
> > + p_node = parent_node(num);
> > +
> > + if (p_node != num)
> > + parent = &node_devices[p_node].node;
> > +
> > + return register_node(&node_devices[num].node, num, parent);
> > +}
> > +
> > +void arch_unregister_node(int num)
> > +{
> > + unregister_node(&node_devices[num].node);
> > +}
> ...
> > +int arch_register_node(int i)
> > +{
> > + int error = 0;
> > +
> > + if (node_online(i)){
> > + int p_node = parent_node(i);
> > + struct node *parent = NULL;
> > +
> > + if (p_node != i)
> > + parent = &node_devices[p_node];
> > + error = register_node(&node_devices[i], i, parent);
> > + }
> > +
> > + return error;
> > +}
>
> While you're at it, can you consolidate these two functions? I don't
> see too much of a reason for keeping them separate. You can probably
> also kill the 'struct i386_node' since it is just a 'struct node'
> wrapper anyway.
Hmmmmmmmm.
I've worried that it can or can't be done. These codes look like midway of
registering hierarchies, because all of arch's parent_node() is just
parent_node(nid) = nid. I guess someone would like to make real code at
here. But, these might be just wrecks too. :-(
Ok. I'll try consolidate once. If there is a person who would like to
make something at here, he will complain. :-P
> I promise not to complain if you fix the i386 function's braces, too. ;)
Oops. Indeed.
--
Yasunori Goto
-
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/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
