On 03.04.19 10:46, Michal Hocko wrote: > On Thu 28-03-19 14:43:18, Oscar Salvador wrote: >> From: Michal Hocko <mhocko@xxxxxxxx> >> >> arch_add_memory, __add_pages take a want_memblock which controls whether >> the newly added memory should get the sysfs memblock user API (e.g. >> ZONE_DEVICE users do not want/need this interface). Some callers even >> want to control where do we allocate the memmap from by configuring >> altmap. >> >> Add a more generic hotplug context for arch_add_memory and __add_pages. >> struct mhp_restrictions contains flags which contains additional >> features to be enabled by the memory hotplug (MHP_MEMBLOCK_API >> currently) and altmap for alternative memmap allocator. >> >> Please note that the complete altmap propagation down to vmemmap code >> is still not done in this patch. It will be done in the follow up to >> reduce the churn here. >> >> This patch shouldn't introduce any functional change. > > Is there an agreement on the interface here? Or do we want to hide almap > behind some more general looking interface? If the former is true, can > we merge it as it touches a code that might cause merge conflicts later on > as multiple people are working on this area. > I was wondering if instead of calling it "mhp_restrctions" we should call it something like "mhp_options", so other stuff might be easier to fit in. Especially, so we don't have to touch all these functions whenever we simply want to pass yet another paraemeter down to the core - or remove one. -- Thanks, David / dhildenb
