> Looks good to me.
>
>>
>> (I would actually even prefer "memory_block_devices", because memory
>> blocks have different meanins)
>>
>
> Agree with you, this comes to my mind sometime ago :-)
We have memblocks, memory_blocks ... I guess memory_block_device is
unique :)
>
>>>
>>> [...]
>>>
>>>> /*
>>>> @@ -1106,6 +1100,13 @@ int __ref add_memory_resource(int nid, struct resource *res)
>>>> if (ret < 0)
>>>> goto error;
>>>>
>>>> + /* create memory block devices after memory was added */
>>>> + ret = hotplug_memory_register(start, size);
>>>> + if (ret) {
>>>> + arch_remove_memory(nid, start, size, NULL);
>>>
>>> Functionally, it works I think.
>>>
>>> But arch_remove_memory() would remove pages from zone. At this point, we just
>>> allocate section/mmap for pages, the zones are empty and pages are not
>>> connected to zone.
>>>
>>> Function zone = page_zone(page); always gets zone #0, since pages->flags is 0
>>> at this point. This is not exact.
>>>
>>> Would we add some comment to mention this? Or we need to clean up
>>> arch_remove_memory() to take out __remove_zone()?
>>
>> That is precisely what is on my list next (see cover letter).This is
>> already broken when memory that was never onlined is removed again.
>> So I am planning to fix that independently.
>>
>
> Sounds great :-)
Especially, I suspect a lot of bugs in the area of
1. Remove memory that has never been onlined
2. Remove memory that has been onlined/offlined a couple of times
3. Remove memory that has been onlined to different zones.
Will see when refactoring if my intuition is right :)
>
> Hope you would cc me in the following series.
Sure! Thanks!
--
Thanks,
David / dhildenb
