Am 21.11.2013 15:34, schrieb Igor Mammedov: > On Thu, 21 Nov 2013 15:13:12 +0100 > Andreas Färber <afaer...@suse.de> wrote: >> Am 21.11.2013 06:48, schrieb Li Guang: >>> Why not give the memory that not be hot-added a chance to be placed on >>> one memory slot? >> >> Seconded, I believe I requested that on the previous version already. > Because current initial memory allocation is a mess and this already > large series would become even more large and intrusive, so far series > it relatively not intrusive and self contained. > > I believe re-factoring of initial memory to use Dimm devices should be > done later on top of infrastructure this series provides.
My problem with that is that that would be a semantically incompatible modeling change. With your series we might have /machine/dimm.0/child[0] be the first hot-plugged memory and once such a refactoring is done, child[0] silently becomes -m and child[1] is the hot-added one. So if we know that we want/need to change the infrastructure, why not add a single patch (?) to allocate one additional object on the bus now? Unless we actually write the code, we won't know whether there are some incorrect hot-plug assumptions in the dimm code. Andreas -- SUSE LINUX Products GmbH, Maxfeldstr. 5, 90409 Nürnberg, Germany GF: Jeff Hawn, Jennifer Guild, Felix Imendörffer; HRB 16746 AG Nürnberg
