[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20130218122549.GA4448@dhcp-192-168-178-175.profitbricks.localdomain>
Date: Mon, 18 Feb 2013 13:25:49 +0100
From: Vasilis Liaskovitis <vasilis.liaskovitis@...fitbricks.com>
To: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...k.pl>
Cc: ACPI Devel Maling List <linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Bjorn Helgaas <bhelgaas@...gle.com>,
Yinghai Lu <yinghai@...nel.org>,
Toshi Kani <toshi.kani@...com>, Jiang Liu <liuj97@...il.com>,
wency@...fujitsu.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] ACPI / scan: Make it clear that acpi_bus_trim() cannot
fail
Hi,
On Thu, Jan 24, 2013 at 11:56:50PM +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> From: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@...el.com>
>
> Since acpi_bus_trim() cannot fail, change its definition to a void
> function, so that its callers don't check the return value in vain
> and update the callers.
I have missed a few patchsets/discussions in the last month and wanted to
ask a question related to this: Does the new always-succeed 2-pass
trim_device design guarantee safe memory hot-remove operations?
Afaict if memory offline fails now, the device is ejected (_EJ0) anyways
causing a panic. Tested in a VM with linux-next-20130207 and
linux-next-20130218 by doing an SCI-eject request on a hot-plugged dimm.
Are there more patches in development for safe memory hot-remove?
thanks,
- Vasilis
--
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