[PATCH] typo in i386/init.c [BugMe #6538]

[PATCH] typo in i386/init.c [BugMe #6538]

[Nishanth Aravamudan]

Hi Andrew,

Resending, since I haven't heard anything back yet.

Description: Fix a small typo in arch/i386/mm/init.c. Confirmed to fix
BugMe #6538.

Signed-off-by: Nishanth Aravamudan <nacc@us.ibm.com>

diff -urpN 2.6.17-rc4/arch/i386/mm/init.c 2.6.17-rc4-dev/arch/i386/mm/init.c
--- 2.6.17-rc4/arch/i386/mm/init.c	2006-05-12 10:26:59.000000000 -0700
+++ 2.6.17-rc4-dev/arch/i386/mm/init.c	2006-05-12 13:49:38.000000000 -0700
@@ -651,7 +651,7 @@ void __init mem_init(void)
  * Specifically, in the case of x86, we will always add
  * memory to the highmem for now.
  */
-#ifdef CONFIG_HOTPLUG_MEMORY
+#ifdef CONFIG_MEMORY_HOTPLUG
 #ifndef CONFIG_NEED_MULTIPLE_NODES
 int add_memory(u64 start, u64 size)
 {

-- 
Nishanth Aravamudan <nacc@us.ibm.com>
IBM Linux Technology Center

Re: [PATCH] typo in i386/init.c [BugMe #6538]

[Dave Hansen]

On Tue, 2006-05-16 at 09:50 -0700, Nishanth Aravamudan wrote:
> Hi Andrew,
> 
> Resending, since I haven't heard anything back yet.
> 
> Description: Fix a small typo in arch/i386/mm/init.c. Confirmed to fix
> BugMe #6538.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Nishanth Aravamudan <nacc@us.ibm.com>
Acked-by: Dave Hansen <haveblue@us.ibm.com>

I had a hunk in a patch in my tree that fixed this as part of the
hot-add for i386 debugging patches.  I missed that the upstream patch
had this junk in it.  Thanks for finding it.

-- Dave

Re: [PATCH] typo in i386/init.c [BugMe #6538]

[Andrew Morton]

Nishanth Aravamudan <nacc@us.ibm.com> wrote:
>
> Hi Andrew,
> 
> Resending, since I haven't heard anything back yet.
> 
> Description: Fix a small typo in arch/i386/mm/init.c. Confirmed to fix
> BugMe #6538.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Nishanth Aravamudan <nacc@us.ibm.com>
> 
> diff -urpN 2.6.17-rc4/arch/i386/mm/init.c 2.6.17-rc4-dev/arch/i386/mm/init.c
> --- 2.6.17-rc4/arch/i386/mm/init.c	2006-05-12 10:26:59.000000000 -0700
> +++ 2.6.17-rc4-dev/arch/i386/mm/init.c	2006-05-12 13:49:38.000000000 -0700
> @@ -651,7 +651,7 @@ void __init mem_init(void)
>   * Specifically, in the case of x86, we will always add
>   * memory to the highmem for now.
>   */
> -#ifdef CONFIG_HOTPLUG_MEMORY
> +#ifdef CONFIG_MEMORY_HOTPLUG
>  #ifndef CONFIG_NEED_MULTIPLE_NODES
>  int add_memory(u64 start, u64 size)
>  {
> 

I already have this patch queued up but I was half-wondering whether to not
send it in for 2.6.17.  Partly because the kernel actually links and
apparently works, which is a rarity when memory hotplug is concerned.

And partly because, well, just look at the patch.  It will give the kernel
new global symbols add_memory() and remove_memory().  So how come it links
OK at present?  And how do we know that it'll link correctly with all
configs once those symbols are added?  If it _does_ link OK with these
symbols added then they're not needed anyway.

So there's something fishy going on here.

Re: [PATCH] typo in i386/init.c [BugMe #6538]

[Dave Hansen]

On Tue, 2006-05-16 at 10:24 -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> And partly because, well, just look at the patch.  It will give the kernel
> new global symbols add_memory() and remove_memory().  So how come it links
> OK at present?

It links OK now with normal configurations, because nobody references
add/remove_memory() unless MEMORY_HOTPLUG is enabled.  The user in the
bug report

	http://bugme.osdl.org/show_bug.cgi?id=6538

managed to enable sparsemem and memory hotplug.  The generic hotplug
code referenced those symbols, and they got a link error.

-- Dave

Re: [PATCH] typo in i386/init.c [BugMe #6538]

[Nishanth Aravamudan]

On 16.05.2006 [10:24:27 -0700], Andrew Morton wrote:
> Nishanth Aravamudan <nacc@us.ibm.com> wrote:
> >
> > Hi Andrew,
> > 
> > Resending, since I haven't heard anything back yet.
> > 
> > Description: Fix a small typo in arch/i386/mm/init.c. Confirmed to fix
> > BugMe #6538.
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Nishanth Aravamudan <nacc@us.ibm.com>
> > 
> > diff -urpN 2.6.17-rc4/arch/i386/mm/init.c 2.6.17-rc4-dev/arch/i386/mm/init.c
> > --- 2.6.17-rc4/arch/i386/mm/init.c	2006-05-12 10:26:59.000000000 -0700
> > +++ 2.6.17-rc4-dev/arch/i386/mm/init.c	2006-05-12 13:49:38.000000000 -0700
> > @@ -651,7 +651,7 @@ void __init mem_init(void)
> >   * Specifically, in the case of x86, we will always add
> >   * memory to the highmem for now.
> >   */
> > -#ifdef CONFIG_HOTPLUG_MEMORY
> > +#ifdef CONFIG_MEMORY_HOTPLUG
> >  #ifndef CONFIG_NEED_MULTIPLE_NODES
> >  int add_memory(u64 start, u64 size)
> >  {
> > 
> 
> I already have this patch queued up but I was half-wondering whether
> to not send it in for 2.6.17.  Partly because the kernel actually
> links and apparently works, which is a rarity when memory hotplug is
> concerned.
> 
> And partly because, well, just look at the patch.  It will give the
> kernel new global symbols add_memory() and remove_memory().  So how
> come it links OK at present?

BugMe #6538 (http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=6538) indicates
that we currently fail to link with at least 1 .config currently. Toralf
indicated this patch fixes the build for that particular .config.

> And how do we know that it'll link correctly with all configs once
> those symbols are added?  If it _does_ link OK with these symbols
> added then they're not needed anyway.
> 
> So there's something fishy going on here.

I won't deny that :)

Thanks,
Nish

-- 
Nishanth Aravamudan <nacc@us.ibm.com>
IBM Linux Technology Center

Re: [PATCH] typo in i386/init.c [BugMe #6538]

[Dave Hansen]

On Tue, 2006-05-16 at 10:34 -0700, Nishanth Aravamudan wrote:
> > So there's something fishy going on here.
> 
> I won't deny that :)

I think the fishiness probably comes from the apparent fact that nobody
besides me ever enabled sparsemem, then memory hotplug on x86.  I never
caught or hit it because I never tried that config without the other
patches that make "fake hotplug" work on x86.  

-- Dave

Re: [PATCH] typo in i386/init.c [BugMe #6538]

[KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki]

On Tue, 16 May 2006 10:40:16 -0700
Dave Hansen <haveblue@us.ibm.com> wrote:

> On Tue, 2006-05-16 at 10:34 -0700, Nishanth Aravamudan wrote:
> > > So there's something fishy going on here.
> > 
> > I won't deny that :)
> 
> I think the fishiness probably comes from the apparent fact that nobody
> besides me ever enabled sparsemem, then memory hotplug on x86.  

I usually enable CONFIG_MEMORY_HOTPLUG + CONFIG_SPARSEMEM and test it. 
Then I sent a patch in past ;)

But I wonder usual x86 men will never use memory hot-add until memory
hot-remove is implemented. 
-Kame

[PATCH] typo in i386/init.c [BugMe #6538]

[Nishanth Aravamudan]

Hi Andrew,

Description: Fix a small typo in arch/i386/mm/init.c. Confirmed to fix
BugMe #6538.

Signed-off-by: Nishanth Aravamudan <nacc@us.ibm.com>

diff -urpN 2.6.17-rc4/arch/i386/mm/init.c 2.6.17-rc4-dev/arch/i386/mm/init.c
--- 2.6.17-rc4/arch/i386/mm/init.c	2006-05-12 10:26:59.000000000 -0700
+++ 2.6.17-rc4-dev/arch/i386/mm/init.c	2006-05-12 13:49:38.000000000 -0700
@@ -651,7 +651,7 @@ void __init mem_init(void)
  * Specifically, in the case of x86, we will always add
  * memory to the highmem for now.
  */
-#ifdef CONFIG_HOTPLUG_MEMORY
+#ifdef CONFIG_MEMORY_HOTPLUG
 #ifndef CONFIG_NEED_MULTIPLE_NODES
 int add_memory(u64 start, u64 size)
 {

-- 
Nishanth Aravamudan <nacc@us.ibm.com>
IBM Linux Technology Center