[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <2b52778d-f120-eec7-3e7a-3a9c182170f0@intel.com>
Date: Wed, 16 Jan 2019 15:01:39 -0800
From: Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...el.com>
To: Jerome Glisse <jglisse@...hat.com>,
Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>
Cc: dave@...1.net, dan.j.williams@...el.com, dave.jiang@...el.com,
zwisler@...nel.org, vishal.l.verma@...el.com,
thomas.lendacky@....com, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
mhocko@...e.com, linux-nvdimm@...ts.01.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org,
ying.huang@...el.com, fengguang.wu@...el.com, bp@...e.de,
bhelgaas@...gle.com, baiyaowei@...s.chinamobile.com, tiwai@...e.de
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/4] mm/memory-hotplug: allow memory resources to be
children
On 1/16/19 11:16 AM, Jerome Glisse wrote:
>> We also rework the old error message a bit since we do not get
>> the conflicting entry back: only an indication that we *had* a
>> conflict.
> We should keep the device private check (moving it in __request_region)
> as device private can try to register un-use physical address (un-use
> at time of device private registration) that latter can block valid
> physical address the error message you are removing report such event.
If a resource can't support having a child, shouldn't it just be marked
IORESOURCE_BUSY, rather than trying to somehow special-case
IORES_DESC_DEVICE_PRIVATE_MEMORY behavior?
Powered by blists - more mailing lists