From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1755695AbYIWWTR (ORCPT ); Tue, 23 Sep 2008 18:19:17 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1750958AbYIWWTE (ORCPT ); Tue, 23 Sep 2008 18:19:04 -0400 Received: from smtp1.linux-foundation.org ([140.211.169.13]:56242 "EHLO smtp1.linux-foundation.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750955AbYIWWTD (ORCPT ); Tue, 23 Sep 2008 18:19:03 -0400 Date: Tue, 23 Sep 2008 15:17:48 -0700 From: Andrew Morton To: Badari Pulavarty Cc: randy.dunlap@oracle.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, mingo@elte.hu, tglx@linutronix.de, lethal@linux-sh.org Subject: Re: mmotm 2008-09-22-01-36 uploaded (memory_hotplug) Message-Id: <20080923151748.7268cf16.akpm@linux-foundation.org> In-Reply-To: <1222207702.6491.10.camel@badari-desktop> References: <200809220838.m8M8cwC2031790@imap1.linux-foundation.org> <20080922112918.c6ea4e05.randy.dunlap@oracle.com> <20080922125731.0ee87e05.akpm@linux-foundation.org> <1222207702.6491.10.camel@badari-desktop> X-Mailer: Sylpheed version 2.2.4 (GTK+ 2.8.20; i486-pc-linux-gnu) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Tue, 23 Sep 2008 15:08:22 -0700 Badari Pulavarty wrote: > > > so it is defined in both mm/memory_hotplug.c and > > > arch/x86/mm/init_64.c when CONFIG_MEMORY_HOTREMOVE=y. > > > > > > > OK, thanks, it looks like people are changing things under our feet. > > > > Badari, can you please check this fix against > > mm-cleanup-to-make-remove_memory-arch-neutral.patch? > > > > > When I made the patch, only ppc64, ia64 and s390 had > memory_remove() support in mainline. I sent a patch against > x86 to add hotplug memory remove support. I guess you > merged Gary's patch and sh-arch patch. > > I noticed that you cleaned up all these and added to -mm. > Do you want me to merge all these into a single patch and > resend it (against -mm) ? No, that's OK. > (It will look exactly the same > anyway). Does that mean you reviewed all the fixes I added? We're sure that all the per-arch implementations of remove_memory() can be replaced by the generic one?