Messages in this thread | | | Date | Fri, 4 Aug 2006 09:44:43 +0900 | From | KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH] memory hotadd fixes [4/5] avoid check in acpi |
| |
On Thu, 03 Aug 2006 17:13:16 -0700 keith mannthey <kmannth@us.ibm.com> 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 <kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com> > > > - 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/
| |