[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <9230f9cc-1001-e3ce-aa74-10b766c8cdb0@redhat.com>
Date: Wed, 8 Dec 2021 14:38:22 +0100
From: David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com>
To: Eric DeVolder <eric.devolder@...cle.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, x86@...nel.org,
kexec@...ts.infradead.org, ebiederm@...ssion.com,
dyoung@...hat.com, bhe@...hat.com, vgoyal@...hat.com
Cc: tglx@...utronix.de, mingo@...hat.com, bp@...en8.de,
dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com, hpa@...or.com,
nramas@...ux.microsoft.com, thomas.lendacky@....com,
robh@...nel.org, efault@....de, rppt@...nel.org,
konrad.wilk@...cle.com, boris.ostrovsky@...cle.com
Subject: Re: [RFC v2 4/6] crash hp: generic crash hotplug support
infrastructure
> +#if defined(CONFIG_MEMORY_HOTPLUG)
> +static int crash_memhp_notifier(struct notifier_block *nb,
> + unsigned long val, void *v)
> +{
> + struct memory_notify *mhp = v;
> + unsigned long start, end;
> +
> + start = mhp->start_pfn << PAGE_SHIFT;
> + end = ((mhp->start_pfn + mhp->nr_pages) << PAGE_SHIFT) - 1;
> +
> + switch (val) {
> + case MEM_GOING_ONLINE:
> + crash_hotplug_handler(KEXEC_CRASH_HP_ADD_MEMORY,
> + start, end-start);
> + break;
> +
> + case MEM_OFFLINE:
> + case MEM_CANCEL_ONLINE:
> + crash_hotplug_handler(KEXEC_CRASH_HP_REMOVE_MEMORY,
> + start, end-start);
Any reason you don't handle this after the effects completely, meaning
MEM_ONLINE and MEM_OFFLINE?
--
Thanks,
David / dhildenb
Powered by blists - more mailing lists