[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <1154650396.5925.49.camel@keithlap>
Date: Thu, 03 Aug 2006 17:13:16 -0700
From: keith mannthey <kmannth@...ibm.com>
To: KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com>
Cc: lkml <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
lhms-devel <lhms-devel@...ts.sourceforge.net>,
"y-goto@...fujitsu.com" <y-goto@...fujitsu.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...l.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] memory hotadd fixes [4/5] avoid check in acpi
On Thu, 2006-08-03 at 12:36 +0900, KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki wrote:
> add_memory() does all necessary check to avoid collision.
> then, acpi layer doesn't have to check region by itself.
>
> (*) pfn_valid() just returns page struct is valid or not. It returns 0
> if a section has been already added even is ioresource is not added.
> ioresource collision check in mm/memory_hotplug.c can do more precise
> collistion check.
> added enabled bit check just for sanity check..
>
> Signed-Off-By: KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com>
> - start_pfn = info->start_addr >> PAGE_SHIFT;
> - end_pfn = (info->start_addr + info->length - 1) >> PAGE_SHIFT;
> -
> - if (pfn_valid(start_pfn) || pfn_valid(end_pfn)) {
This check needs to go somewhare in the add path. I am thinking of a
validate_add_memory_area call in add_memory (that can also be flexable
to enable the reserve check of (this memory area in add_nodes).
It is a useful protection for the sparsemem add path. I would rather
the kernel be able to stand up to odd acpi namespaces or other
mechanisms of invoking add_memory.
Thanks,
Keith
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists