RE: [Lhms-devel] RE: memory hotremove prototype, take 3

[Perez-Gonzalez, Inaky]

> From: Pavel Machek [mailto:pavel@xxxxxxx]


> > I still think we could use the CPU's virtualization mechanism--of course,
> > and as you and Tony Luck mention, we'd had to track down and modify the
> > parts that assume physical memory et al. That they use large pages
> > or
> 
> ...which means basically auditing whole kernel, and rewriting half of
> drivers. Good luck with _that_.

Bingo...just the perfect excuse I need to give to my manager to keep
a low profile while tinkering around for a long time :)

Okay, so I will play a wee bit more the devil's advocate as an 
exercise of futility, if you don't mind. Just trying to compile a 
(possibly incomplete) quick list of what would be needed, can you 
guys help me? you know way more than I do:

1) the core kernel needs to be independent of physical memory position
1.1) same with drivers/subsystems
1.2) filesystems
[it cannot be really incomplete because I have added all the code :/]

Oh well, forget it, that's more than enough. Another project for the
stack of interesting things to work on.

Thanks to all

Iñaky Pérez-González -- Not speaking for Intel -- all opinions are my own (and my fault)
-
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/