On Thu, Feb 28, 2013 at 11:43 PM, Yinghai Lu <ying...@kernel.org> wrote: > [trim down CC list a bit] > > On Thu, Feb 28, 2013 at 9:00 PM, Yinghai Lu <ying...@kernel.org> wrote: >> >> >> On Thursday, February 28, 2013, H. Peter Anvin wrote: >>> >>> On 02/28/2013 08:32 PM, Linus Torvalds wrote: >>> > Yingai, Andrew, >>> > is this ok with you two? >>> > >>> > Linus >>> >>> FWIW, it makes sense to me iff it resolves the problems >> >> >> I prefer to reverting all 8 patches. >> >> Actually I have worked out one patch that could solve all problems, but it >> is too intrusive that I do not want to split it to small pieces to post >> it. >> >> Leaving the movablemem_map related changes in the upstream tree, will >> prevent me from continuing to make memblock to be used to allocate page >> table on local node ram for hot add. >> >> Will send reverting patch and putting page table on local node patch around >> 10pm after I get home. > > Please check attached patches. > > Plan A. revert all 8 patches: > revert_movablemem_map.patch > > Plan B. fix movablemem_map: > kill_max_low_pfn_mapped.patch and fix_movablemem_map.patch > > fix_movablemem_map.patch is too risky, and need more test. > > Konrad, Stefano: > Can you check kill_max_low_pfn_mapped.patch and fix_movablemem_map.patch > on top of today's Linus tree to check if it breaks Xen? >
Sorry, miss change in setup.c during split the patch. Thanks Yinghai
fix_movablemem_map_v2.patch
Description: Binary data
