On 13.07.2022 11:55, Wei Chen wrote: >> From: Jan Beulich <jbeul...@suse.com> >> Sent: 2022年7月13日 16:46 >> >> On 13.07.2022 10:22, Wei Chen wrote: >>>> From: Jan Beulich <jbeul...@suse.com> >>>> Sent: 2022年7月12日 19:54 >>>> >>>> Mechanically the change is fine. Albeit maybe "top" instead >>>> of "boundary", and maybe also pass "node" even if x86 doesn't need it? >>>> >>> >>> Sorry, I am not very clear about these comments: >>> It makes sense to use mem_hotplug_update_top instead >>> of mem_hotplug_update_boundary. But how can I understand pass "node"? >>> did you mean mem_hotplug_update_top(node, end)? But mem_hotplug is >>> a global top for memory hotplug ranges. I don't think pass "node" >>> to this function can be useful. >> >> Please separate "current implementation" from "abstract model". In the >> latter it would seem quite reasonable to me to have per-node upper >> bounds (or even per-node ranges). Therefore adding node (and, on top >> of what I did suggest before, region start) to the parameters of the >> new per-arch hook would seem a good move to me, even if at present >> only / at most the "end" parameter would actually be used. >> > > As we will export mem_hotplug to common, I think these changes are > not needed any more?
Indeed. I merely wanted to address your question nevertheless, or in case there was still a reason to avoid making the global variable common. Jan
