On Wed, 2007-10-03 at 10:19 +0900, KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki wrote: > On Tue, 02 Oct 2007 16:10:53 -0700 > Badari Pulavarty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > Otherwise, we need to add arch-specific hooks in hotplug-remove > > > > code to be able to do this. > > > > > > Isn't it just a matter of abstracting the test for a valid range of > > > memory? If it's really hard to abstract that, then I guess we can put > > > RAM in iomem_resource, but I'd rather not. > > > > > > > Sure. I will work on it and see how ugly it looks. > > > > KAME, are you okay with abstracting the find_next_system_ram() and > > let arch provide whatever implementation they want ? (since current > > code doesn't work for x86-64 also ?). > > > Hmm, registering /proc/iomem is complicated ?
Its not complicated. Like Paul mentioned, its part of user/kernel API which he is not prefering to break (if possible) + /proc/iomem seems like a weird place to export conventional memory. > If too complicated, adding config > like > CONFIG_ARCH_SUPPORT_IORESOURCE_RAM or something can do good work. > you can define your own "check_pages_isolated" (you can rename this to > arch_check_apges_isolated().) I was thinking more in the lines of CONFIG_ARCH_HAS_VALID_MEMORY_RANGE. Then define own find_next_system_ram() (rename to is_valid_memory_range()) - which checks the given range is a valid memory range for memory-remove or not. What do you think ? Thanks, Badari _______________________________________________ Linuxppc-dev mailing list Linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org https://ozlabs.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxppc-dev
