On Tue, 13 Jul 2010 10:51:58 -0500 Nathan Fontenot <nf...@austin.ibm.com> wrote:
> > > > And for what purpose this interface is ? Does this split memory block into > > 2 pieces > > of the same size ?? sounds __very__ strange interface to me. > > Yes, this splits the memory_block into two blocks of the same size. This was > suggested as something we may want to do. From ppc perspective I am not sure > we > would use this. > > The split functionality is not required. The main goal of the patch set is to > reduce the number of memory sysfs directories created. From a ppc perspective > the split functionality is not really needed. > Okay, this is an offer from me. 1. I think you can add an boot option as "don't create memory sysfs". please do. 2. I'd like to write a configfs module for handling memory hotplug even when sysfs directroy is not created. Because configfs support rmdir/mkdir, the user (ppc's daemon?) has to do When offlining section X. # insmod configfs_memory.ko # mount -t configfs none /configfs # mkdir /configfs/memoryX # echo offline > /configfs/memoryX/state # rmdir /configfs/memoryX And making this operation as the default bahavior for all arch's memory hotplug may be better... Dave, how do you think ? Because ppc guys uses "probe" interface already, this can be handled... no ? One problem is that I don't have enough knowledge about configfs..it seems complex. Thanks, -Kame _______________________________________________ Linuxppc-dev mailing list Linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org https://lists.ozlabs.org/listinfo/linuxppc-dev