On Friday, November 16, 2012 10:07:49 AM Yasuaki Ishimatsu wrote: > Hi Rafael, > > 2012/11/16 9:28, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > > On Thursday, November 15, 2012 02:59:30 PM Wen Congyang wrote: > >> The memory device can be removed by 2 ways: > >> 1. send eject request by SCI > >> 2. echo 1 >/sys/bus/pci/devices/PNP0C80:XX/eject > >> > >> In the 1st case, acpi_memory_disable_device() will be called. > >> In the 2nd case, acpi_memory_device_remove() will be called. > >> acpi_memory_device_remove() will also be called when we unbind the > >> memory device from the driver acpi_memhotplug or a driver initialization > >> fails. > >> > >> acpi_memory_disable_device() has already implemented a code which > >> offlines memory and releases acpi_memory_info struct . But > >> acpi_memory_device_remove() has not implemented it yet. > >> > >> So the patch prepares the framework for hot removing memory and > >> adds the framework into acpi_memory_device_remove(). > >> > >> We may hotremove the memory device by this 2 ways at the same time. > >> So we remove the function acpi_memory_disable_device(), and use > >> acpi_bus_hot_remove_device() which is used by 2nd case to implement it. > >> We lock device in acpi_bus_hot_remove_device(), so there is no > >> need to add lock in acpi_memhotplug. > >> > >> The last version of this patchset is here: > >> https://lkml.org/lkml/2012/11/8/121 > >> > >> Note: > >> 1. The following commit in pm tree can be dropped now(The other two patches > >> are already dropped): > >> 54c4c7db6cb94d7d1217df6d7fca6847c61744ab > >> 2. This patchset requires the following patch(It is in pm tree now) > >> https://lkml.org/lkml/2012/11/1/225 > >> > >> Changes from v4 to v5: > >> 1. patch2: new patch. use acpi_bus_hot_remove_device() to implement memory > >> device hotremove. > >> > >> Changes from v3 to v4: > >> 1. patch1: unlock list_lock when removing memory fails. > >> 2. patch2: just rebase them > >> 3. patch3-7: these patches are in -mm tree, and they conflict with this > >> patchset, so Adrew Morton drop them from -mm tree. I rebase and merge > >> them into this patchset. > >> > >> Wen Congyang (6): > >> acpi,memory-hotplug: deal with eject request in hotplug queue > >> acpi_memhotplug.c: fix memory leak when memory device is unbound from > >> the module acpi_memhotplug > >> acpi_memhotplug.c: free memory device if acpi_memory_enable_device() > >> failed > >> acpi_memhotplug.c: don't allow to eject the memory device if it is > >> being used > >> acpi_memhotplug.c: bind the memory device when the driver is being > >> loaded > >> acpi_memhotplug.c: auto bind the memory device which is hotplugged > >> before the driver is loaded > >> > >> Yasuaki Ishimatsu (1): > >> acpi,memory-hotplug : add memory offline code to > >> acpi_memory_device_remove() > > > > Well, I have tried _really_ hard to apply this patchset, but pretty much > > none of the patches except for [1/7] applied for me. I have no idea what > > tree they are against, but I'm pretty sure it's not my tree. > > > > I _have_ applied patches [1-4/7] and pushed them to linux-pm.git/linux-next. > > I checked your tree and found a mistake. > You merged a following patch into your tree. > > commitid:2ba281f1 > ACPI / memory-hotplug: introduce a mutex lock to protect the list > in acpi_memory_device > > But it is wrong. > > [1/7] patch is "acpi,memory-hotplug : add memory offline code to > acpi_memory_device_remove()". So we would like you to merge it > instead of commitid:2ba281f1. Yes, I've found it too. Now applied patches [1-6/7], because I agree with Toshi Kani that patch [7/7] goes too far, so I'm not going to apply it. Thanks, Rafael -- I speak only for myself. Rafael J. Wysocki, Intel Open Source Technology Center. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-acpi" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
