On Mon, 30 Jul 2012 18:35:37 +0800
Wen Congyang [off-list ref] wrote:

At 07/30/2012 06:23 PM, Heiko Carstens Wrote:

quoted

On Fri, Jul 27, 2012 at 06:32:15PM +0800, Wen Congyang wrote:

quoted

We don't call __add_pages() directly in the function add_memory()
because some other architecture related things need to be done
before or after calling __add_pages(). So we should introduce
a new function arch_remove_memory() to revert the things
done in arch_add_memory().

Note: the function for s390 is not implemented(I don't know how to
implement it for s390).

There is no hardware or firmware interface which could trigger a
hot memory remove on s390. So there is nothing that needs to be
implemented.

Thanks for providing this information.

According to this, arch_remove_memory() for s390 can just return
-EBUSY.

Yes, but there is a prototype mismatch for arch_remove_memory() on s390
and also other architectures (u64 vs. unsigned long).

arch/s390/mm/init.c:262: error: conflicting types for
‘arch_remove_memory’ include/linux/memory_hotplug.h:88: error: previous
declaration of ‘arch_remove_memory’ was here

In memory_hotplug.h you have:
extern int arch_remove_memory(unsigned long start, unsigned long size);

On all archs other than x86 you have:
int arch_remove_memory(u64 start, u64 size)

--
To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
the body to majordomo@kvack.org.  For more info on Linux MM,
see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@kvack.org"> email@kvack.org </a>