On Tue, Mar 31, 2015 at 01:25:46PM +0300, Boaz Harrosh wrote: > The problem I see is that if I state a memmap=nn!aa that crosses a NUMA > boundary then the machine will not boot. > So BTW for sure I need that "don't merge E820_PMEM ranges" patch because > otherwise I will not be able to boot if I have pmem on both NUMA nodes > and they happen to be contiguous. Ok. > Regarding the SQUASHMEs to PMEM. Originally I had them as 3-4 patches. > But I thought since you are squashing them into a single submitted patch > I can just send just the one patch. Tell me what you prefer and I'll > resend (The one vs the three) The slpit is mostly to get a good description for each change. > And one last issue. I have some configuration "hardness" with the > memmap=nn!aa Kernel command line API, it was better for me with the > pmem map= module param. Will you be OK if I split pmem_probe() into > calling pmem_alloc(addr, length), so I can keep an out-of-tree patch > that adds the map= parameter to pmem? Can't your out of tree patch do that as well? In fact you might want to rewrite it to a module that allows your to create/destroy the platform_devices you use. And for your PCIe case I'd really prefer a proper in-tree PCI driver for it. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-fsdevel" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
