From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail191.messagelabs.com (mail191.messagelabs.com [216.82.242.19]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 496F76B01D1 for ; Tue, 18 May 2010 11:46:20 -0400 (EDT) Received: from d01relay05.pok.ibm.com (d01relay05.pok.ibm.com [9.56.227.237]) by e9.ny.us.ibm.com (8.14.3/8.13.1) with ESMTP id o4IFWjTZ030663 for ; Tue, 18 May 2010 11:32:45 -0400 Received: from d01av03.pok.ibm.com (d01av03.pok.ibm.com [9.56.224.217]) by d01relay05.pok.ibm.com (8.13.8/8.13.8/NCO v10.0) with ESMTP id o4IFkEET137052 for ; Tue, 18 May 2010 11:46:14 -0400 Received: from d01av03.pok.ibm.com (loopback [127.0.0.1]) by d01av03.pok.ibm.com (8.14.3/8.13.1/NCO v10.0 AVout) with ESMTP id o4IFkDw1008571 for ; Tue, 18 May 2010 12:46:14 -0300 Subject: Re: [RFC, 6/7] NUMA hotplug emulator From: Dave Hansen In-Reply-To: <4BF255F3.9040002@linux.intel.com> References: <20100513120016.GG2169@shaohui> <20100513165603.GC25212@suse.de> <1273773737.13285.7771.camel@nimitz> <20100513181539.GA26597@suse.de> <1273776578.13285.7820.camel@nimitz> <20100518054121.GA25298@shaohui> <1274167625.17463.17.camel@nimitz> <4BF255F3.9040002@linux.intel.com> Content-Type: text/plain Date: Tue, 18 May 2010 08:46:10 -0700 Message-Id: <1274197570.17463.30.camel@nimitz> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org To: Andi Kleen Cc: Shaohui Zheng , Greg KH , akpm@linux-foundation.org, linux-mm@kvack.org, Thomas Gleixner , Ingo Molnar , "H. Peter Anvin" , x86@kernel.org, Hidetoshi Seto , Wu Fengguang , Heiko Carstens , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, haicheng.li@linux.intel.com, shaohui.zheng@linux.intel.com List-ID: On Tue, 2010-05-18 at 10:55 +0200, Andi Kleen wrote: > I liked Dave's earlier proposal to do a command line parameter like interface > for "probe". Perhaps that can be done. It shouldn't need a lot of code. After looking at the code, configfs doesn't look to me like it can be done horribly easily. It takes a least a subsystem and then a few structures to get things up and running. There also doesn't appear to be a good subsystem to plug into. > In fact there are already two different parser libraries for this: > lib/parser.c and lib/params.c. One could chose the one that one likes > better :-) Agreed. But, I do see why Greg is suggesting configfs here. Superficially, it seems like a good configfs fit, but I think configfs is only a good fit when you need to cram a _bunch_ of stuff into a _new_ interface. Here, we have a relatively tiny amount of data that has half of what it needs from an existing interface. -- Dave -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@kvack.org. For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . Don't email: email@kvack.org