On 04/18/23 at 08:55am, Eric DeVolder wrote: ...... > > > > Seems we passed in the cpu number just for printing here. Wondering why > > > > we don't print out hot added/removed memory ranges. Is the cpu number > > > > printing necessary? > > > > > > > Baoquan, > > > > > > Ah, actually until recently it was used to track the 'offlinecpu' in this > > > function, but tglx pointed out that was un-necessary. That resulted in > > > dropping the code in this function dealing with offlinecpu, leaving this as > > > its only use in this function. > > > > > > The printing of cpu number is not necessary, but helpful; I use it for debugging. > > > > OK, I see. I am not requesting memory range printing, just try to prove > > cpu number printing is not so justified. If it's helpful, I am OK with > > it. Let's see if other people have concern about this. > > > > I do not plan on adding the memory range printing. > > > > > > > The printing of memory range is also not necessary, but in order to do that, > > > should we choose to do so, requires passing in the memory range to this > > > function. This patch series did do this early on, and by v7 I dropped it at > > > your urging (https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20220401183040.1624-1-eric.devolder@xxxxxxxxxx/). > > > At the time, I provided it since I considered this generic infrastructure, > > > but I could not defend it since x86 didn't need it. However, PPC now needs > > > this, and is now carrying this as part of PPC support of CRASH_HOTPLUG (https://lore.kernel.org/linuxppc-dev/20230312181154.278900-6-sourabhjain@xxxxxxxxxxxxx/T/#u). > > > > > > If you'd rather I pickup the memory range handling again, I can do that. I > > > think I'd likely change this function to be: > > > > > > void crash_handle_hotplug_event(unsigned int hp_action, unsigned int cpu, > > > struct memory_notify *mhp); > > > > > > where on a CPU op the 'cpu' parameter would be valid and 'mhp' NULL, and on a memory op, > > > the 'mhp' would be valid and 'cpu' parameter invalid(0). > > > > > > I'd likely then stuff these two parameters into struct kimage so that it can > > > be utilized by arch-specific handler, if needed. > > > > > > And of course, would print out the memory range for debug purposes. > > > > > > Let me know what you think. > > > > I do not plan on adding the memory range handling; I'll let Sourabh do that as he has a use case for it. > > As such, I don't see any other request for changes. OK, then I have no concern about this patchset. Thanks a lot for all these effort, Eric. Hi x86 maintainers, Could you help check if there's anything we need improve, or consider taking this patchset? Thanks Baoquan _______________________________________________ kexec mailing list kexec@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/kexec
