On Wed, Apr 24, 2019 at 6:37 PM Aneesh Kumar K.V
wrote:
>
> On 4/24/19 11:43 PM, Dan Williams wrote:
> > On Wed, Apr 24, 2019 at 10:38 AM Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> >>
> >> On Wed, Apr 24, 2019 at 10:13:15AM -0700, Dan Williams wrote:
> >>> I think unaligned addresses have always been passed to
>
___
Linux-nvdimm mailing list
Linux-nvdimm@lists.01.org
https://lists.01.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-nvdimm
On 04/25/2019 01:18 AM, Pavel Tatashin wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 24, 2019 at 5:07 AM Anshuman Khandual
> wrote:
>>
>> On 04/24/2019 02:08 AM, Pavel Tatashin wrote:
>>> sparsemem section size determines the maximum size and alignment that
>>> is allowed to offline/online memory block. The bigger the
On 4/24/19 11:43 PM, Dan Williams wrote:
On Wed, Apr 24, 2019 at 10:38 AM Matthew Wilcox wrote:
On Wed, Apr 24, 2019 at 10:13:15AM -0700, Dan Williams wrote:
I think unaligned addresses have always been passed to
vmf_insert_pfn_pmd(), but nothing cared until this patch. I *think*
the only
> > > +static int
> > > +offline_memblock_cb(struct memory_block *mem, void *arg)
> >
> > Function name suggests that you are actually trying to offline memory
> > here. Maybe check_memblocks_offline_cb(), just like we have in
> > mm/memory_hotplug.c.
Makes sense, I will rename to
On Wed, Apr 24, 2019 at 1:55 PM David Hildenbrand wrote:
>
> On 21.04.19 03:44, Pavel Tatashin wrote:
> > It is now allowed to use persistent memory like a regular RAM, but
> > currently there is no way to remove this memory until machine is
> > rebooted.
> >
> > This work expands the
On 21.04.19 03:44, Pavel Tatashin wrote:
> It is now allowed to use persistent memory like a regular RAM, but
> currently there is no way to remove this memory until machine is
> rebooted.
>
> This work expands the functionality to also allows hotremoving
> previously hotplugged persistent
I am also taking a look at this work now. I will review and test it in
the next couple of days.
Pasha
On Tue, Apr 23, 2019 at 9:17 AM Oscar Salvador wrote:
>
> On Wed, 2019-04-17 at 15:59 -0700, Dan Williams wrote:
> > On Wed, Apr 17, 2019 at 3:04 PM Andrew Morton > org> wrote:
> > >
> > > On
> This is yet another example of where we need to break down the section
> alignment requirement for arch_add_memory().
>
> https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/12633539.2015392.2477781120122237934.st...@dwillia2-desk3.amr.corp.intel.com/
Hi Dan,
Yes, that is exactly what I am trying to solve with
On Wed, Apr 24, 2019 at 12:54 PM Pavel Tatashin
wrote:
>
> from original email
>
> On Wed, Apr 24, 2019 at 3:48 PM Pavel Tatashin
> wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, Apr 24, 2019 at 5:07 AM Anshuman Khandual
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > On 04/24/2019 02:08 AM, Pavel Tatashin wrote:
> > > > sparsemem section
from original email
On Wed, Apr 24, 2019 at 3:48 PM Pavel Tatashin
wrote:
>
> On Wed, Apr 24, 2019 at 5:07 AM Anshuman Khandual
> wrote:
> >
> > On 04/24/2019 02:08 AM, Pavel Tatashin wrote:
> > > sparsemem section size determines the maximum size and alignment that
> > > is allowed to
On Wed, Apr 24, 2019 at 5:07 AM Anshuman Khandual
wrote:
>
> On 04/24/2019 02:08 AM, Pavel Tatashin wrote:
> > sparsemem section size determines the maximum size and alignment that
> > is allowed to offline/online memory block. The bigger the size the less
> > the clutter in
On Thu, Apr 04, 2019 at 03:06:46PM -0700, Brendan Higgins wrote:
> From: Avinash Kondareddy
>
> Tests how tests interact with test managed resources in their lifetime.
>
> Signed-off-by: Avinash Kondareddy
> Signed-off-by: Brendan Higgins
> ---
> kunit/test-test.c | 122
Hi Brendan,
KUNIT_ASSERT_NOT_ERR_OR_NULL() should be replaced to
KUNIT_EXPECT_NOT_ERR_OR_NULL(), right?
On Thu, Apr 04, 2019 at 03:06:49PM -0700, Brendan Higgins wrote:
> Add documentation for KUnit, the Linux kernel unit testing framework.
> - Add intro and usage guide for KUnit
> - Add API
On Wed, Apr 24, 2019 at 10:38 AM Matthew Wilcox wrote:
>
> On Wed, Apr 24, 2019 at 10:13:15AM -0700, Dan Williams wrote:
> > I think unaligned addresses have always been passed to
> > vmf_insert_pfn_pmd(), but nothing cared until this patch. I *think*
> > the only change needed is the following,
On Tue, Apr 23, 2019 at 2:21 PM David Hildenbrand wrote:
>
> On 17.04.19 20:39, Dan Williams wrote:
> > Teach the arch_remove_memory() path to consult the same 'struct
> > mhp_restrictions' context as was specified at arch_add_memory() time.
> >
> > No functional change, this is a preparation
On Wed, Apr 24, 2019 at 10:13:15AM -0700, Dan Williams wrote:
> I think unaligned addresses have always been passed to
> vmf_insert_pfn_pmd(), but nothing cared until this patch. I *think*
> the only change needed is the following, thoughts?
>
> diff --git a/fs/dax.c b/fs/dax.c
> index
On Tue, Apr 2, 2019 at 4:51 AM Aneesh Kumar K.V
wrote:
>
> With some architectures like ppc64, set_pmd_at() cannot cope with
> a situation where there is already some (different) valid entry present.
>
> Use pmdp_set_access_flags() instead to modify the pfn which is built to
> deal with modifying
原邮件信息 -
发件人:急件
收件人:linux-nvdimm
发送时间:2019-4-24 23:36:47
___
Linux-nvdimm mailing list
Linux-nvdimm@lists.01.org
https://lists.01.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-nvdimm
On 04/24/2019 02:08 AM, Pavel Tatashin wrote:
> sparsemem section size determines the maximum size and alignment that
> is allowed to offline/online memory block. The bigger the size the less
> the clutter in /sys/devices/system/memory/*. On the other hand, however,
> there is less flexability
20 matches
Mail list logo
