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. NAK. -- 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=mailto:"dont@xxxxxxxxx";> email@xxxxxxxxx </a>