Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S932345AbWHCHBQ (ORCPT ); Thu, 3 Aug 2006 03:01:16 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S932346AbWHCHBQ (ORCPT ); Thu, 3 Aug 2006 03:01:16 -0400 Received: from fgwmail5.fujitsu.co.jp ([192.51.44.35]:10415 "EHLO fgwmail5.fujitsu.co.jp") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S932345AbWHCHBP (ORCPT ); Thu, 3 Aug 2006 03:01:15 -0400 Date: Thu, 3 Aug 2006 16:03:28 +0900 From: KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki To: Andrew Morton 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: <20060803160328.f66dcfd2.kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com> In-Reply-To: <20060802233802.8186eb38.akpm@osdl.org> References: <20060803123039.c50feb85.kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com> <20060802233802.8186eb38.akpm@osdl.org> Organization: Fujitsu X-Mailer: Sylpheed version 2.2.0 (GTK+ 2.6.10; i686-pc-mingw32) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1677 Lines: 37 On Wed, 2 Aug 2006 23:38:02 -0700 Andrew Morton wrote: > On Thu, 3 Aug 2006 12:30:39 +0900 > KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki 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. > yes.. just tested on my emulation box with some patterns, including patterns in hot-add-failure report.(very small chunks in one section, and very big contiguous memory hot add and unaligned memory hot-add.) > 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? > I think this patch fixes serious problems. This patch can enlarge memory-hot-add supported hardware. And fast-track paths sounds attractiveto me. But I want more tests and reviews. I posted this 3 weeks ago to -lhms but no positive/negative answers from the list. Thanks, -Kame - 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/