On Wed, 2007-10-03 at 10:19 +0900, KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki wrote:

On Tue, 02 Oct 2007 16:10:53 -0700
Badari Pulavarty [off-list ref] wrote:

quoted

quoted

quoted

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