On Thu, Sep 27, 2012 at 11:50 PM, Yasuaki Ishimatsu <isimatu.yasu...@jp.fujitsu.com> wrote: > Hi Chen, > > > 2012/09/28 11:22, Ni zhan Chen wrote: >> >> On 09/05/2012 05:25 PM, we...@cn.fujitsu.com wrote: >>> >>> From: Yasuaki Ishimatsu <isimatu.yasu...@jp.fujitsu.com> >>> >>> remove_memory() only try to offline pages. It is called in two cases: >>> 1. hot remove a memory device >>> 2. echo offline >/sys/devices/system/memory/memoryXX/state >>> >>> In the 1st case, we should also change memory block's state, and notify >>> the userspace that the memory block's state is changed after offlining >>> pages. >>> >>> So rename remove_memory() to offline_memory()/offline_pages(). And in >>> the 1st case, offline_memory() will be used. The function >>> offline_memory() >>> is not implemented. In the 2nd case, offline_pages() will be used. >> >> >> But this time there is not a function associated with add_memory. > > > To associate with add_memory() later, we renamed it.
Then, you introduced bisect breakage. It is definitely unacceptable. NAK. _______________________________________________ Linuxppc-dev mailing list Linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org https://lists.ozlabs.org/listinfo/linuxppc-dev
