From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-yx0-f179.google.com (mail-yx0-f179.google.com [209.85.213.179]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (Client CN "smtp.gmail.com", Issuer "Google Internet Authority" (verified OK)) by ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 33DE2B6F64 for ; Tue, 4 Oct 2011 11:50:28 +1100 (EST) Received: by yxk8 with SMTP id 8so4708071yxk.38 for ; Mon, 03 Oct 2011 17:50:25 -0700 (PDT) Date: Mon, 3 Oct 2011 17:50:22 -0700 From: Andrew Morton To: Nathan Fontenot Subject: Re: [PATCH] memory hotplug: Correct page reservation checking Message-Id: <20111003175022.50cbef7f.akpm00@gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <4E8098B9.1080702@austin.ibm.com> References: <4E8098B9.1080702@austin.ibm.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Cc: Greg KH , linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org List-Id: Linux on PowerPC Developers Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , On Mon, 26 Sep 2011 10:22:33 -0500 Nathan Fontenot wrote: > The check to ensure that pages of recently added memory sections are correctly > marked as reserved before trying to online the memory is broken. The request > to online the memory fails with the following: > > kernel: section number XXX page number 256 not reserved, was it already online? > > This updates the page reservation checking to check the pages of each memory > section of the memory block being onlined individually. Why was this only noticed now? Is there something unusual about the way in which you're using it, or has nobody ever used this code, or...?