On Wed, 2 Aug 2006 23:38:02 -0700
Andrew Morton <[email protected]> wrote:
> 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.
>
yes.. just tested on my emulation box with some patterns, including patterns in
hot-add-failure report.(very small chunks in one section, and very big contiguous
memory hot add and unaligned memory hot-add.)
> 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?
>
I think this patch fixes serious problems. This patch can enlarge memory-hot-add
supported hardware. And fast-track paths sounds attractiveto me.
But I want more tests and reviews.
I posted this 3 weeks ago to -lhms but no positive/negative answers from the list.
Thanks,
-Kame
-
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]
