Re: [PATCH 00/22] HWPOISON: Intro (v5)

[Wu Fengguang]

On Mon, Jun 15, 2009 at 11:18:18AM +0800, Balbir Singh wrote:
> Wu Fengguang wrote:
> > Hi all,
> > 
> > Comments are warmly welcome on the newly introduced uevent code :)
> > 
> > I hope we can reach consensus in this round and then be able to post
> > a final version for .31 inclusion.
> 
> Isn't that too aggressive? .31 is already in the merge window.

Yes, a bit aggressive. This is a new feature that involves complex logics.
However it is basically a no-op when there are no memory errors,
and when memory corruption does occur, it's better to (possibly) panic
in this code than to panic unconditionally in the absence of this
feature (as said by Rik).

So IMHO it's OK for .31 as long as we agree on the user interfaces,
ie. /proc/sys/vm/memory_failure_early_kill and the hwpoison uevent.

It comes a long way through numerous reviews, and I believe all the
important issues and concerns have been addressed. Nick, Rik, Hugh,
Ingo, ... what are your opinions? Is the uevent good enough to meet
your request to "die hard" or "die gracefully" or whatever on memory
failure events?

Thanks,
Fengguang
--
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/