On Wed, 2007-08-29 at 15:14 -0700, Christoph Lameter wrote:

On Wed, 29 Aug 2007, Lee Schermerhorn wrote:

quoted

root@gwydyr(root):cat /sys/devices/system/node/possible
possible:       0-255

The file is already called "possible". Repeating it in the output will
make it difficult to parse.

Yeah.  I noticed, after I posted, how stupid that looked.  Clear a case
of "premature patch-ulation".  I'm fixing it now.  

quoted

+static ssize_t
+print_nodes_possible(struct sysdev_class *class, char *buf)
+{
+	return print_nodes_state(N_POSSIBLE, buf);
+}
+
+static ssize_t
+print_nodes_online(struct sysdev_class *class, char *buf)
+{
+	return print_nodes_state(N_ONLINE, buf);
+}
+
+static ssize_t
+print_nodes_has_normal_memory(struct sysdev_class *class, char *buf)
+{
+	return print_nodes_state(N_NORMAL_MEMORY, buf);
+}
+
+static ssize_t
+print_nodes_has_cpu(struct sysdev_class *class, char *buf)
+{
+	return print_nodes_state(N_CPU, buf);
+}

Is there a way to avoid having to add another one of these if we add
a new node state?

I haven't figure out a way from the info I'm given in the show/print
routine [just the node class and the buffer address] to figure out which
attribute file was read, or I'd have avoided the function per attribute
nonsense.

Also there is a CR after the type.

Took me a minute to figure out what you meant.  Again, old habits...
I've always put my function names against the left margin for easy
searching.  But I have read where this is discouraged.

I will say that the patch passed checkpatch just fine.  I'll fix it in
the respin.

Lee

--
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: <a href=mailto:"dont@kvack.org"> email@kvack.org </a>