> > 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?
Hmm. I reviewed them a bit, and I couldn't find any problems.
However, my ia64 box is same of his. And emulation environment is very
close too. So, my perspective must be very similar from him.
I think my review is not enough. Keith-san's test is better if he can.
Anyway, I'll test them with -mm. Something different environment
may be good for test.
Thanks.
--
Yasunori Goto
-
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]
