Date: Wed, 2 Aug 2006 23:38:02 -0700
From: Andrew Morton <akpm@osdl.org>
To: KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, lhms-devel@lists.sourceforge.net,
       kmannth@us.ibm.com, y-goto@jp.fujitsu.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] memory hotadd fixes [1/5] not-aligned memory hotadd
 handling fix
Message-Id: <20060802233802.8186eb38.akpm@osdl.org>
In-Reply-To: <20060803123039.c50feb85.kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com>
References: <20060803123039.c50feb85.kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 1178
Lines: 27

On Thu, 3 Aug 2006 12:30:39 +0900
KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com> wrote:

> After Keith's report of memory hotadd failure, I increased test patterns.
> These patches are a result of new patterns. But I cannot cover all existing
> memory layout in the world, more tests are needed.
> Now, I think my patch can make things better and want this codes to be tested
> in -mm.patche series is consitsts of 5 patches.

I expect the code which these patches touch is completely untested in -mm, so
all we'll get is compile testing and some review.

Given that these patches touch pretty much nothing but the memory hot-add
paths I'd be inclined to fast-track them into 2.6.18.  Do you agree that
these patches are sufficiently safe and that the problems that they solve
are sufficiently serious for us to take that approach?

Either way, could I ask that interested parties review this work closely
and promptly?

Thanks.

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/