On Mon, 2012-10-29 at 06:16 +0000, Wen Congyang wrote: > At 10/27/2012 01:14 AM, Toshi Kani Wrote: > > On Fri, 2012-10-26 at 18:31 +0800, wency@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote: > >> From: Yasuaki Ishimatsu <isimatu.yasuaki@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > >> > >> The memory device can be removed by 2 ways: > >> 1. send eject request by SCI > >> 2. echo 1 >/sys/bus/pci/devices/PNP0C80:XX/eject > >> > >> In the 1st case, acpi_memory_disable_device() will be called. > >> In the 2nd case, acpi_memory_device_remove() will be called. > > > > Hi Yasuaki, Wen, > > > > Why do you need to have separate code design & implementation for the > > two cases? In other words, can the 1st case simply use the same code > > path of the 2nd case, just like I did for the CPU hot-remove patch > > below? It will simplify the code and make the memory notify handler > > more consistent with other handlers. > > https://lkml.org/lkml/2012/10/19/456 > > Yes, the 1st case can simply reuse the same code of the 2nd case. > It is another issue. The memory is not offlined and removed in 2nd > case. This patchset tries to fix this problem. After doing this, > we can merge the codes for the two cases. > > But there is some bug in the code for 2nd case: > If offlining memory failed, we don't know such error in 2nd case, and > the kernel will in a dangerous state: the memory device is poweroffed > but the kernel is using it. > > We should fix this bug before merging them. Hi Wen, Sounds good. Thanks for the clarification! -Toshi > Thanks > Wen Congyang > -- 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>