On Tue, 2008-06-03 at 15:49 -0500, Nathan Lynch wrote: > Hannes Hering wrote: > > > > On Wednesday 28 May 2008 18:44:05 Nathan Lynch wrote: > > > > > > Hannes Hering wrote: > > > > The new ehea memory hot plug implementation depends on MEMORY_HOTPLUG. > > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Hannes Hering <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > > --- > > > > > > > > diff --git a/drivers/net/Kconfig b/drivers/net/Kconfig > > > > index f90a86b..181cd86 100644 > > > > --- a/drivers/net/Kconfig > > > > +++ b/drivers/net/Kconfig > > > > @@ -2440,7 +2440,7 @@ config CHELSIO_T3 > > > > > > > > config EHEA > > > > tristate "eHEA Ethernet support" > > > > - depends on IBMEBUS && INET && SPARSEMEM > > > > + depends on IBMEBUS && INET && SPARSEMEM && MEMORY_HOTPLUG > > > > select INET_LRO > > > > ---help--- > > > > This driver supports the IBM pSeries eHEA ethernet adapter. > > > > > > I disagree with this change. > > > > > > It makes it impossible to build the ehea driver without memory hotplug > > > enabled. Presumably, this commit was intended to work around a build > > > break of this sort (with EHEA=m and MEMORY_HOTPLUG=n): > > > > > > drivers/net/ehea/ehea_qmr.c: In function 'ehea_create_busmap': > > > drivers/net/ehea/ehea_qmr.c:635: error: implicit declaration of function > > > 'walk_memory_resource' > > > > > > (some indication of this should have been in the commit message, btw) > > > > > > I think this was the wrong way to fix the issue. EHEA=m and > > > MEMORY_HOTPLUG=n is a valid configuration for machines I test. > > > > > > Any thoughts on the following, which makes walk_memory_resource() > > > available regardless of MEMORY_HOTPLUG's setting? I've tested it on a > > > JS22 (Power6 blade). > > > > I agree that the ehea cannot be built without MEMORY_HOTPLUG. The > > problem is the fact that the ppc walk_memory_resource declaration is > > in the scope of MEMORY_HOTPLUG. At the moment I don't have complete > > overview if the move of the code as you propose in your patch has > > any side effects. We probably need to talk to Badari who provided > > the walk_memory_resource code. We can also just throw it onto one of > > our boxes to see what happens. ;) > > I would certainly appreciate any additional testing.
I think we can make walk_memory_resource() for ppc64 available outside of MEMORY_HOTPLUG. It doesn't require any MEMORY_HOTPLUG functionality to work correctly. Its a generic enough interface. Only reason I placed it under MEMORY_HOTPLUG is to have parity with the arch-independent version + we needed for eHEA driver whic needs MEMORY_HOTPLUG. > You wrote the ehea code that uses walk_memory_resource, so I was > hoping you could speak to whether ehea needs that interface when > CONFIG_MEMORY_HOTPLUG=n. Or maybe there should be a no-op version of > walk_memory_resource for that case? And what about the > arch-independent version in kernel/resource.c? Badari? I would leave the arch-independent version alone - since its not exported and there are no users for it. > It would be nice to get this resolved for 2.6.26 -- this new > dependency causes working 2.6.25 configs to effectively fail (by > deselecting CONFIG_EHEA during make oldconfig). Thanks, Badari _______________________________________________ Linuxppc-dev mailing list Linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org https://ozlabs.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxppc-dev
