From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Date: Sat, 6 Sep 2008 02:01:54 +0200 From: Andi Kleen Subject: Re: [PATCH] [RESEND] x86_64: add memory hotremove config option Message-ID: <20080906000154.GC18288@one.firstfloor.org> References: <20080905172132.GA11692@us.ibm.com> <87ej3yv588.fsf@basil.nowhere.org> <20080905195314.GE11692@us.ibm.com> <20080905200401.GA18288@one.firstfloor.org> <20080905215452.GF11692@us.ibm.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20080905215452.GF11692@us.ibm.com> Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Return-Path: To: Gary Hade Cc: Andi Kleen , linux-mm@kvack.org, Andrew Morton , Yasunori Goto , Badari Pulavarty , Mel Gorman , Chris McDermott , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, x86@kernel.org, Ingo Molnar List-ID: > I am not sure if I understand why you appear to be opposed to > enabling the hotremove function before all the issues related I'm quite sceptical that it can be ever made to work in a useful way for real hardware (as opposed to an hypervisor para virtual setup for which this interface is not the right way -- it should be done in some specific driver instead) And if it cannot be made to work then it will be a false promise to the user. They will see it and think it will work, but it will not. This means I don't see a real use case for this feature. -Andi -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@kvack.org. For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . Don't email: email@kvack.org