Re: another pmem variant V2

[Christoph Hellwig]

On Tue, Mar 31, 2015 at 01:25:46PM +0300, Boaz Harrosh wrote:
> The problem I see is that if I state a memmap=nn!aa that crosses a NUMA
> boundary then the machine will not boot.
> So BTW for sure I need that "don't merge E820_PMEM ranges" patch because
> otherwise I will not be able to boot if I have pmem on both NUMA nodes
> and they happen to be contiguous.

Ok.

> Regarding the SQUASHMEs to PMEM. Originally I had them as 3-4 patches.
> But I thought since you are squashing them into a single submitted patch
> I can just send just the one patch. Tell me what you prefer and I'll
> resend (The one vs the three)

The slpit is mostly to get a good description for each change.

> And one last issue. I have some configuration "hardness" with the
> memmap=nn!aa Kernel command line API, it was better for me with the
> pmem map= module param. Will you be OK if I split pmem_probe() into
> calling pmem_alloc(addr, length), so I can keep an out-of-tree patch
> that adds the map= parameter to pmem?

Can't your out of tree patch do that as well?  In fact you might want to
rewrite it to a module that allows your to create/destroy the platform_devices
you use.  And for your PCIe case I'd really prefer a proper in-tree PCI
driver for it.
--
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/