linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 2/2] mm, memory_hotplug: provide a more generic restrictions for memory hotplug

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Fri, 5 Apr 2019 09:14:18 +0200
From:   Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org>
To:     David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com>
Cc:     Oscar Salvador <osalvador@...e.de>, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
        dan.j.williams@...el.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-mm@...ck.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] mm, memory_hotplug: provide a more generic
 restrictions for memory hotplug

On Thu 04-04-19 20:27:41, David Hildenbrand wrote:
> On 04.04.19 20:01, Oscar Salvador wrote:
[...]
> > But I am not really convinced by MHP_SYSTEM_RAM name, and I think we should stick
> > with MHP_MEMBLOCK_API because it represents __what__ is that flag about and its
> > function, e.g: create memory block devices.

Exactly

> This nicely aligns with the sub-section memory add support discussion.
> 
> MHP_MEMBLOCK_API immediately implies that
> 
> - memory is used as system ram. Memory can be onlined/offlined. Markers
>   at sections indicate if the section is online/offline.

No there is no implication like that. It means only that the onlined
memory has a sysfs interface. Nothing more, nothing less

This is an internal API so we are not carving anything into the stone.
So can we simply start with what we have and go from there? I am getting
felling that this discussion just makes the whole thing more muddy.
-- 
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs