[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20150331160853.GA1152@lst.de>
Date: Tue, 31 Mar 2015 18:08:53 +0200
From: Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>
To: Boaz Harrosh <boaz@...xistor.com>
Cc: Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>, linux-nvdimm@...1.01.org,
linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
x86@...nel.org, ross.zwisler@...ux.intel.com, axboe@...nel.dk
Subject: Re: another pmem variant V2
On Tue, Mar 31, 2015 at 01:25:46PM +0300, Boaz Harrosh wrote:
> The problem I see is that if I state a memmap=nn!aa that crosses a NUMA
> boundary then the machine will not boot.
> So BTW for sure I need that "don't merge E820_PMEM ranges" patch because
> otherwise I will not be able to boot if I have pmem on both NUMA nodes
> and they happen to be contiguous.
Ok.
> Regarding the SQUASHMEs to PMEM. Originally I had them as 3-4 patches.
> But I thought since you are squashing them into a single submitted patch
> I can just send just the one patch. Tell me what you prefer and I'll
> resend (The one vs the three)
The slpit is mostly to get a good description for each change.
> And one last issue. I have some configuration "hardness" with the
> memmap=nn!aa Kernel command line API, it was better for me with the
> pmem map= module param. Will you be OK if I split pmem_probe() into
> calling pmem_alloc(addr, length), so I can keep an out-of-tree patch
> that adds the map= parameter to pmem?
Can't your out of tree patch do that as well? In fact you might want to
rewrite it to a module that allows your to create/destroy the platform_devices
you use. And for your PCIe case I'd really prefer a proper in-tree PCI
driver for it.
--
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