On Wed, 5 Aug 2009 16:16:42 +0200 Nick Piggin <npiggin@xxxxxxx> wrote: > On Wed, Aug 05, 2009 at 04:10:01PM +0200, Andi Kleen wrote: > > > I haven't brought up the caller at this point, but IIRC you had > > > the page locked and mapping confirmed at this point anyway so > > > it would never be an error for your code. > > > > > > Probably it would be nice to just force callers to verify the page. > > > Normally IMO it is much nicer and clearer to do it at the time the > > > page gets locked, unless there is good reason otherwise. > > > > Ok. I think I'll just keep it as it is for now. > > > > The only reason I added the error code was to make truncate_inode_page > > fit into .error_remove_page, but then latter I did another wrapper > > so it could be removed again. But it won't hurt to have it either. > > OK, it's more of a cleanup/nit. > > One question I had for the others (Andrew? other mm guys?) what is the > feelings of merging this feature? Leaving aside exact implementation > and just considering the high level design and cost/benefit. Last time > there were some people objecting, so I wonder the situation now? So > does anybody need more convincing? :) > > Also I will just cc linux-arch. It would be interesting to know whether > powerpc, ia64, or s390 or others would be interested to use this feature? This is not relevant for s390, as current machines do transparent memory sparing if a memory module goes bad. Really old machines reported bad memory to the OS by means of a machine check (storage error uncorrected and storage error corrected). I have never seen this happen, the level below the OS deals with these errors for us. -- blue skies, Martin. "Reality continues to ruin my life." - Calvin. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-arch" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
