Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S932578AbWHDAqM (ORCPT ); Thu, 3 Aug 2006 20:46:12 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S932581AbWHDAqM (ORCPT ); Thu, 3 Aug 2006 20:46:12 -0400 Received: from fgwmail6.fujitsu.co.jp ([192.51.44.36]:3748 "EHLO fgwmail6.fujitsu.co.jp") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S932578AbWHDAqL (ORCPT ); Thu, 3 Aug 2006 20:46:11 -0400 Date: Fri, 4 Aug 2006 09:44:43 +0900 From: KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki To: kmannth@us.ibm.com Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, lhms-devel@lists.sourceforge.net, y-goto@jp.fujitsu.com, akpm@osdl.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] memory hotadd fixes [4/5] avoid check in acpi Message-Id: <20060804094443.c6f09de6.kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com> In-Reply-To: <1154650396.5925.49.camel@keithlap> References: <20060803123604.0f909208.kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com> <1154650396.5925.49.camel@keithlap> 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: 1828 Lines: 45 On Thu, 03 Aug 2006 17:13:16 -0700 keith mannthey wrote: > On Thu, 2006-08-03 at 12:36 +0900, KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki wrote: > > add_memory() does all necessary check to avoid collision. > > then, acpi layer doesn't have to check region by itself. > > > > (*) pfn_valid() just returns page struct is valid or not. It returns 0 > > if a section has been already added even is ioresource is not added. > > ioresource collision check in mm/memory_hotplug.c can do more precise > > collistion check. > > added enabled bit check just for sanity check.. > > > > Signed-Off-By: KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki > > > - start_pfn = info->start_addr >> PAGE_SHIFT; > > - end_pfn = (info->start_addr + info->length - 1) >> PAGE_SHIFT; > > - > > - if (pfn_valid(start_pfn) || pfn_valid(end_pfn)) { > > This check needs to go somewhare in the add path. I am thinking of a > validate_add_memory_area call in add_memory (that can also be flexable > to enable the reserve check of (this memory area in add_nodes). > > It is a useful protection for the sparsemem add path. I would rather > the kernel be able to stand up to odd acpi namespaces or other > mechanisms of invoking add_memory. > Hmm..Okay. I'll try some check patch today. please review it. Maybe moving ioresouce collision check in early stage of add_memory() is good ? Note: I remove pfn_valid() here because pfn_valid() just says section exists or not. When adding seveal small memory chunks in one section, Only the first small chunk can be added. 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/