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]
Message-ID: <20190405071418.GN12864@dhcp22.suse.cz>
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

Powered by blists - more mailing lists

Powered by Openwall GNU/*/Linux Powered by OpenVZ