Hi Kosaki-san, 2012/09/29 7:15, KOSAKI Motohiro wrote:
On Thu, Sep 27, 2012 at 11:50 PM, Yasuaki Ishimatsu <isimatu.yasuaki@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:Hi Chen, 2012/09/28 11:22, Ni zhan Chen wrote:On 09/05/2012 05:25 PM, wency@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:From: Yasuaki Ishimatsu <isimatu.yasuaki@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> remove_memory() only try to offline pages. It is called in two cases: 1. hot remove a memory device 2. echo offline >/sys/devices/system/memory/memoryXX/state In the 1st case, we should also change memory block's state, and notify the userspace that the memory block's state is changed after offlining pages. So rename remove_memory() to offline_memory()/offline_pages(). And in the 1st case, offline_memory() will be used. The function offline_memory() is not implemented. In the 2nd case, offline_pages() will be used.But this time there is not a function associated with add_memory.To associate with add_memory() later, we renamed it.Then, you introduced bisect breakage. It is definitely unacceptable.
What is "bisect breakage" meaning? Thanks, Yasuaki Ishimatsu
NAK.
-- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-ia64" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html