[lkml]   [2019]   [Apr]   [5]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [PATCH 2/2] mm, memory_hotplug: provide a more generic restrictions for memory hotplug
On Thu 04-04-19 20:27:41, David Hildenbrand wrote:
> On 04.04.19 20:01, Oscar Salvador wrote:
> > But I am not really convinced by MHP_SYSTEM_RAM name, and I think we should stick
> > with MHP_MEMBLOCK_API because it represents __what__ is that flag about and its
> > function, e.g: create memory block devices.


> This nicely aligns with the sub-section memory add support discussion.
> MHP_MEMBLOCK_API immediately implies that
> - memory is used as system ram. Memory can be onlined/offlined. Markers
> at sections indicate if the section is online/offline.

No there is no implication like that. It means only that the onlined
memory has a sysfs interface. Nothing more, nothing less

This is an internal API so we are not carving anything into the stone.
So can we simply start with what we have and go from there? I am getting
felling that this discussion just makes the whole thing more muddy.
Michal Hocko

 \ /
  Last update: 2019-04-05 09:34    [W:0.171 / U:28.508 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site