On Mon, 30 Jul 2012 18:35:37 +0800 Wen Congyang <wency@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > At 07/30/2012 06:23 PM, Heiko Carstens Wrote: > > On Fri, Jul 27, 2012 at 06:32:15PM +0800, Wen Congyang wrote: > >> We don't call __add_pages() directly in the function add_memory() > >> because some other architecture related things need to be done > >> before or after calling __add_pages(). So we should introduce > >> a new function arch_remove_memory() to revert the things > >> done in arch_add_memory(). > >> > >> Note: the function for s390 is not implemented(I don't know how to > >> implement it for s390). > > > > There is no hardware or firmware interface which could trigger a > > hot memory remove on s390. So there is nothing that needs to be > > implemented. > > Thanks for providing this information. > > According to this, arch_remove_memory() for s390 can just return > -EBUSY. Yes, but there is a prototype mismatch for arch_remove_memory() on s390 and also other architectures (u64 vs. unsigned long). arch/s390/mm/init.c:262: error: conflicting types for ‘arch_remove_memory’ include/linux/memory_hotplug.h:88: error: previous declaration of ‘arch_remove_memory’ was here In memory_hotplug.h you have: extern int arch_remove_memory(unsigned long start, unsigned long size); On all archs other than x86 you have: int arch_remove_memory(u64 start, u64 size) -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@xxxxxxxxx. For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . Don't email: <a href