On Tue, 02 Oct 2007 16:10:53 -0700 Badari Pulavarty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Otherwise, we need to add arch-specific hooks in hotplug-remove > > > code to be able to do this. > > > > Isn't it just a matter of abstracting the test for a valid range of > > memory? If it's really hard to abstract that, then I guess we can put > > RAM in iomem_resource, but I'd rather not. > > > > Sure. I will work on it and see how ugly it looks. > > KAME, are you okay with abstracting the find_next_system_ram() and > let arch provide whatever implementation they want ? (since current > code doesn't work for x86-64 also ?). > Hmm, registering /proc/iomem is complicated ? If too complicated, adding config like CONFIG_ARCH_SUPPORT_IORESOURCE_RAM or something can do good work. you can define your own "check_pages_isolated" (you can rename this to arch_check_apges_isolated().)
BTW, I shoudl ask people how to describe conventional memory A. #define IORESOURCE_RAM IORESOURCE_MEM (ia64) B. #define IORESOURCE_RAM IORESOURCE_MEM | IORESOUCE_BUSY (i386, x86_64) Sad to say, memory hot-add registers new memory just as IORESOURCE_MEM. Thanks, -Kame _______________________________________________ Linuxppc-dev mailing list Linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org https://ozlabs.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxppc-dev
