Re: srat: harsh hot-pluggable memory check?

[Davidlohr Bueso]

On Thu, 2013-01-10 at 21:02 +0100, Andi Kleen wrote:
> > This only mentions that the system supports hot-plugging, and IMHO if the
> > user decides not to use CONFIG_MEMORY_HOTPLUG, it shouldn't be considered an error.
> > Therefore would it be ok to drop the check? Or am I missing something?
> 
> The very strict checks were originally implemented because various early
> BIOS had largely fictional SRATs, and trusting them blindly caused
> boot failures or a lot of wasted memory for unnecessary hotplug zones. 
> The wasted memory was mainly a problem with the old memory hotplug
> implementation that pre-allocated memmaps, that's not a problem anymore.
> However there may be still some other failure cases.
> 

Would you be willing to take a patch that drops this check then? Or do
you see any other scenario where it would still be valid?

Thanks,
Davidlohr

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/