![]() | |||||||||||||
Messages in this thread |
On Wed, 2 Aug 2006 23:38:02 -0700 Andrew Morton <akpm@osdl.org> wrote: > 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. > 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/ | ||||||||||||
| Last update: 2006-08-03 09:03 [from the cache] ©2003-2008 | |||||||||||||