On Thu 17-01-13 18:37:10, Lin Feng wrote:
[...]
> > I am still not sure I understand the relation to MEMORY_HOTREMOVE.
> > Is register_page_bootmem_info_node required/helpful even if
> > !CONFIG_MEMORY_HOTREMOVE?
> From old kenrel's view register_page_bootmem_info_node() is defined in
> CONFIG_MEMORY_HOTPLUG_SPARSE, it registers some info for
> memory hotplug/remove. If we don't use MEMORY_HOTPLUG feature, this
> function is empty, we don't need the info at all.
> So this info is not required/helpful if !CONFIG_MEMORY_HOTREMOVE.
OK, then I suggest moving it under CONFIG_MEMORY_HOTREMOVE guards rather
than CONFIG_MEMORY_HOTPLUG.
> > Also, now that I am thinking about that more, maybe it would
> > be cleaner to put the select into arch/x86/Kconfig and do it
> > same as ARCH_ENABLE_MEMORY_{HOTPLUG,HOTREMOVE} (and name it
> > ARCH_HAVE_BOOTMEM_INFO_NODE).
> >
> Maybe put it in mm/Kconfig is a better choice, because if one day
> someone implements the register_page_bootmem_info_node() for other
> archs they will get some clues here, that's it has been implemented on
> x86_64.
> But I'm not so sure...
My understanding is that doing that in arch code is more appropriate
because it makes the generic code less complicated. But I do not have
any strong opinion on that. Looking at other ARCH_ENABLE_MEMORY_HOTPLUG
and others suggests that we should be consistent with that.
Thanks!
--
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs
--
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>