On 13.06.19 03:54, Andrew Morton wrote: > On Wed, 12 Jun 2019 08:53:33 +0200 David Hildenbrand <david@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >>>>> ... >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> - Rebased on linux-next (next-20190611) >>>> >>>> Yet the patch you've prepared is designed for 5.3. Was that >>>> deliberate, or should we be targeting earlier kernels? >>> >>> It was deliberate for 5.3 as a preparation for upcoming reworked arm64 hot-remove. >>> >> >> We should probably add to the patch description something like "This is >> a preparation for arm64 memory hotremove. The described issue is not >> relevant on other architectures." > > Please. And is there any reason to merge it separately? Can it be > [patch 1/3] in the "arm64/mm: Enable memory hot remove" series? > Nothing that the patch can be considered a cleanup: " mm/hotplug: Reorder memblock_[free|remove]() calls in try_remove_memory() In add_memory_resource() we have: memblock_add_node(start, size, nid) ... arch_add_memory(nid, start, size, &restrictions); ... create_memory_block_devices(start, size); While in try_remove_memory() we have: memblock_free(start, size); memblock_remove(start, size); ... remove_memory_block_devices(start, size); arch_remove_memory(nid, start, size, NULL); Let's restore the correct order by removing the memblock after arch_remove_memory(). " I think with such a description, we can include it now. Andrew? -- Thanks, David / dhildenb
