On Thu, Nov 21, 2013 at 05:09:27PM +0100, Andreas Färber wrote: > Am 21.11.2013 15:34, schrieb Igor Mammedov: > > On Thu, 21 Nov 2013 15:13:12 +0100 > > Andreas Färber <afaer...@suse.de> wrote: > >> Am 21.11.2013 06:48, schrieb Li Guang: > >>> Why not give the memory that not be hot-added a chance to be placed on > >>> one memory slot? > >> > >> Seconded, I believe I requested that on the previous version already. > > Because current initial memory allocation is a mess and this already > > large series would become even more large and intrusive, so far series > > it relatively not intrusive and self contained. > > > > I believe re-factoring of initial memory to use Dimm devices should be > > done later on top of infrastructure this series provides. > > My problem with that is that that would be a semantically incompatible > modeling change.
Yes but we are not merging this for 1.7, time enough to make changes before 1.8. > With your series we might have /machine/dimm.0/child[0] > be the first hot-plugged memory and once such a refactoring is done, > child[0] silently becomes -m and child[1] is the hot-added one. > > So if we know that we want/need to change the infrastructure, why not > add a single patch (?) to allocate one additional object on the bus now? > Unless we actually write the code, we won't know whether there are some > incorrect hot-plug assumptions in the dimm code. > > Andreas > -- > SUSE LINUX Products GmbH, Maxfeldstr. 5, 90409 Nürnberg, Germany > GF: Jeff Hawn, Jennifer Guild, Felix Imendörffer; HRB 16746 AG Nürnberg
