From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-we0-f171.google.com (mail-we0-f171.google.com [74.125.82.171]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id CD4806B0073 for ; Thu, 12 Feb 2015 17:20:11 -0500 (EST) Received: by mail-we0-f171.google.com with SMTP id p10so13112742wes.2 for ; Thu, 12 Feb 2015 14:20:11 -0800 (PST) Received: from v094114.home.net.pl (v094114.home.net.pl. [79.96.170.134]) by mx.google.com with SMTP id ev10si586091wid.71.2015.02.12.14.20.09 for ; Thu, 12 Feb 2015 14:20:10 -0800 (PST) From: "Rafael J. Wysocki" Subject: Re: [PATCH RESEND 0/3] memory_hotplug: hyperv: fix deadlock between memory adding and onlining Date: Thu, 12 Feb 2015 23:43:17 +0100 Message-ID: <4323296.ObXCUgVR2I@vostro.rjw.lan> In-Reply-To: References: <1423736634-338-1-git-send-email-vkuznets@redhat.com> <5256328.ZVnrTeLrH1@vostro.rjw.lan> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org List-ID: To: KY Srinivasan , Andrew Morton Cc: Vitaly Kuznetsov , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , Greg Kroah-Hartman , Haiyang Zhang , Yasuaki Ishimatsu , Tang Chen , Vlastimil Babka , David Rientjes , Fabian Frederick , Zhang Zhen , Vladimir Davydov , Wang Nan , "devel@linuxdriverproject.org" , "linux-mm@kvack.org" On Thursday, February 12, 2015 10:10:30 PM KY Srinivasan wrote: [cut] > > > > > > > > > > This issue was first discovered by Andy Whitcroft: > > > > > https://lkml.org/lkml/2014/3/14/451 > > > > > I had sent patches based on Andy's analysis that did not affect > > > > > the users of the kernel hot-add memory APIs: > > > > > https://lkml.org/lkml/2014/12/2/662 > > > > > > > > > > This patch puts the burden where it needs to be and can address > > > > > the issue > > > > for all clients. > > > > > > > > That seems to mean that this series is not needed. Is that correct? > > > > > > This patch was never committed upstream and so the issue still is there. > > > > Well, I'm not sure what to do now to be honest. > > > > Is this series regarded as the right way to address the problem that > > everybody is comfortable with? Or is it still under discussion? > > We need to solve this problem and that is not under discussion. I also believe this problem > needs to be solved in a way that addresses the problem where it belongs - not in the users of > the hot_add API. Both my solution and the one proposed by David https://lkml.org/lkml/2015/2/12/57 > address this issue. You can select either patch and check it in. I just want the issue addressed and I am not > married to the solution I proposed. OK, thanks! So having looked at both your patch and the David's one I think that the Andrew's tree is appropriate for any of them. Andrew? -- 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