On Thu, 3 Aug 2006 12:30:39 +0900
KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <[email protected]> wrote:
> After Keith's report of memory hotadd failure, I increased test patterns.
> These patches are a result of new patterns. But I cannot cover all existing
> memory layout in the world, more tests are needed.
> Now, I think my patch can make things better and want this codes to be tested
> in -mm.patche series is consitsts of 5 patches.
I expect the code which these patches touch is completely untested in -mm, so
all we'll get is compile testing and some review.
Given that these patches touch pretty much nothing but the memory hot-add
paths I'd be inclined to fast-track them into 2.6.18. Do you agree that
these patches are sufficiently safe and that the problems that they solve
are sufficiently serious for us to take that approach?
Either way, could I ask that interested parties review this work closely
and promptly?
Thanks.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
