Re: [PATCH v10 08/13] mm/sparsemem: Prepare for sub-section ranges

[Dan Williams]

On Thu, Jun 20, 2019 at 9:37 AM David Hildenbrand <david@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On 20.06.19 18:19, Dan Williams wrote:
> > On Thu, Jun 20, 2019 at 3:31 AM David Hildenbrand <david@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >>
> >> On 19.06.19 07:52, Dan Williams wrote:
> >>> Prepare the memory hot-{add,remove} paths for handling sub-section
> >>> ranges by plumbing the starting page frame and number of pages being
> >>> handled through arch_{add,remove}_memory() to
> >>> sparse_{add,remove}_one_section().
> >>>
> >>> This is simply plumbing, small cleanups, and some identifier renames. No
> >>> intended functional changes.
> >>>
> >>> Cc: Michal Hocko <mhocko@xxxxxxxx>
> >>> Cc: Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@xxxxxxx>
> >>> Cc: Logan Gunthorpe <logang@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> >>> Cc: Oscar Salvador <osalvador@xxxxxxx>
> >>> Reviewed-by: Pavel Tatashin <pasha.tatashin@xxxxxxxxxx>
> >>> Signed-off-by: Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@xxxxxxxxx>
> >>> ---
> >>>  include/linux/memory_hotplug.h |    5 +-
> >>>  mm/memory_hotplug.c            |  114 +++++++++++++++++++++++++---------------
> >>>  mm/sparse.c                    |   16 ++----
> >>>  3 files changed, 81 insertions(+), 54 deletions(-)
> > [..]
> >>> @@ -528,31 +556,31 @@ static void __remove_section(struct zone *zone, struct mem_section *ms,
> >>>   * sure that pages are marked reserved and zones are adjust properly by
> >>>   * calling offline_pages().
> >>>   */
> >>> -void __remove_pages(struct zone *zone, unsigned long phys_start_pfn,
> >>> +void __remove_pages(struct zone *zone, unsigned long pfn,
> >>>                   unsigned long nr_pages, struct vmem_altmap *altmap)
> >>>  {
> >>> -     unsigned long i;
> >>>       unsigned long map_offset = 0;
> >>> -     int sections_to_remove;
> >>> +     int i, start_sec, end_sec;
> >>
> >> As mentioned in v9, use "unsigned long" for start_sec and end_sec please.
> >
> > Honestly I saw you and Andrew going back and forth about "unsigned
> > long i" that I thought this would be handled by a follow on patchset
> > when that debate settled.
> >
>
> I'll send a fixup then, once this patch set is final - hoping I won't
> forget about it (that's why I asked about using these types in the first
> place).

It's in Andrew's tree now, I'll send an incremental patch.