Hi Kosaki-san,

2012/09/29 7:15, KOSAKI Motohiro wrote:

On Thu, Sep 27, 2012 at 11:50 PM, Yasuaki Ishimatsu
[off-list ref] wrote:

quoted

Hi Chen,


2012/09/28 11:22, Ni zhan Chen wrote:

quoted

On 09/05/2012 05:25 PM, wency@cn.fujitsu.com wrote:

quoted

From: Yasuaki Ishimatsu <redacted>

remove_memory() only try to offline pages. It is called in two cases:
1. hot remove a memory device
2. echo offline >/sys/devices/system/memory/memoryXX/state

In the 1st case, we should also change memory block's state, and notify
the userspace that the memory block's state is changed after offlining
pages.

So rename remove_memory() to offline_memory()/offline_pages(). And in
the 1st case, offline_memory() will be used. The function
offline_memory()
is not implemented. In the 2nd case, offline_pages() will be used.

But this time there is not a function associated with add_memory.

To associate with add_memory() later, we renamed it.

Then, you introduced bisect breakage. It is definitely unacceptable.

What is "bisect breakage" meaning?

Thanks,
Yasuaki Ishimatsu

NAK.

--
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>