On Mon 09-12-19 12:43:40, Dan Williams wrote: > On Mon, Dec 9, 2019 at 12:24 PM Logan Gunthorpe <logang@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > > > On 2019-12-09 12:23 p.m., David Hildenbrand wrote: > > > On 09.12.19 20:13, Logan Gunthorpe wrote: [...] > > >> #ifdef CONFIG_MEMORY_HOTPLUG > > >> -int arch_add_memory(int nid, u64 start, u64 size, > > >> +int arch_add_memory(int nid, u64 start, u64 size, pgprot_t prot, > > >> struct mhp_restrictions *restrictions) > > > > > > Can we fiddle that into "struct mhp_restrictions" instead? > > > > Yes, if that's what people want, it's pretty trivial to do. I chose not > > to do it that way because it doesn't get passed down to add_pages() and > > it's not really a "restriction". If I don't hear any objections, I will > > do that for v2. > > +1 to storing this information alongside the altmap in that structure. > However, I agree struct mhp_restrictions, with the MHP_MEMBLOCK_API > flag now gone, has lost all of its "restrictions". How about dropping > the 'flags' property and renaming the struct to 'struct > mhp_modifiers'? Hmm, this email somehow didn't end up in my inbox so I have missed it before replying. Well, mhp_modifiers makes some sense and it would reduce the API proliferation but how do you expect the prot part to be handled? I really do not want people to think about PAGE_KERNEL or which protection to use because my experience tells that this will get copied without much thinking or simply will break with some odd usecases. So how exactly this would be used? -- Michal Hocko SUSE Labs
