[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <9a4ff92a-1d79-d91e-0dbc-a1cbde215184@intel.com>
Date: Fri, 24 Jun 2022 12:01:31 -0700
From: Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...el.com>
To: Kai Huang <kai.huang@...el.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
kvm@...r.kernel.org
Cc: linux-mm@...ck.org, seanjc@...gle.com, pbonzini@...hat.com,
len.brown@...el.com, tony.luck@...el.com,
rafael.j.wysocki@...el.com, reinette.chatre@...el.com,
dan.j.williams@...el.com, peterz@...radead.org, ak@...ux.intel.com,
kirill.shutemov@...ux.intel.com,
sathyanarayanan.kuppuswamy@...ux.intel.com,
isaku.yamahata@...el.com, akpm@...ux-foundation.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 05/22] x86/virt/tdx: Prevent hot-add driver managed
memory
On 6/22/22 04:16, Kai Huang wrote:
> @@ -1319,6 +1330,10 @@ int __ref add_memory_resource(int nid, struct resource *res, mhp_t mhp_flags)
> if (ret)
> return ret;
>
> + ret = arch_memory_add_precheck(nid, start, size, mhp_flags);
> + if (ret)
> + return ret;
Shouldn't a patch that claims to be only for "driver managed memory" be
patching add_memory_driver_managed()?
Powered by blists - more mailing lists