search for: new_res

...implicity. Enhance this logic when necessary. */ -int release_mem_region_adjustable(struct resource *parent, - resource_size_t start, resource_size_t size) +void release_mem_region_adjustable(struct resource *parent, + resource_size_t start, resource_size_t size) { + struct resource *new_res = NULL; + bool alloc_nofail = false; struct resource **p; struct resource *res; - struct resource *new_res; resource_size_t end; - int ret = -EINVAL; end = start + size - 1; - if ((start < parent->start) || (end > parent->end)) - return ret; + if (WARN_ON_ONCE((start < par...

...implicity. Enhance this logic when necessary. */ -int release_mem_region_adjustable(struct resource *parent, - resource_size_t start, resource_size_t size) +void release_mem_region_adjustable(struct resource *parent, + resource_size_t start, resource_size_t size) { + struct resource *new_res = NULL; + bool alloc_nofail = false; struct resource **p; struct resource *res; - struct resource *new_res; resource_size_t end; - int ret = -EINVAL; end = start + size - 1; - if ((start < parent->start) || (end > parent->end)) - return ret; + if (WARN_ON_ONCE((start < par...

Clang warns: kernel/resource.c:1281:53: warning: operator '?:' has lower precedence than '|'; '|' will be evaluated first [-Wbitwise-conditional-parentheses] new_res = alloc_resource(GFP_KERNEL | alloc_nofail ? __GFP_NOFAIL : 0); ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ^ kernel/resource.c:1281:53: note: place parentheses around the '|' expression to silence this warning new_res = alloc_resource(GFP_KERNEL | alloc_nofail ? __GF...

...initial memmap for a > kexec kernel (loaded via kexec_load()). The memory will be considered > initial System RAM by the kexec kernel. > > We should let the kexec kernel decide how to use that memory - just as > we do during an ordinary reboot. ... > - rc = add_memory(numa_node, new_res->start, resource_size(new_res), 0); > + rc = add_memory(numa_node, new_res->start, resource_size(new_res), > + MHP_NO_FIRMWARE_MEMMAP); Looks fine. But, if you send another revision, could you add a comment about the actual goal of MHP_NO_FIRMWARE_MEMMAP? Maybe: /* * MHP_NO_FIR...

...dhat.com> --- drivers/dax/kmem.c | 3 ++- 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) diff --git a/drivers/dax/kmem.c b/drivers/dax/kmem.c index e159184e0ba0..929823a79816 100644 --- a/drivers/dax/kmem.c +++ b/drivers/dax/kmem.c @@ -65,7 +65,8 @@ int dev_dax_kmem_probe(struct device *dev) new_res->flags = IORESOURCE_SYSTEM_RAM; new_res->name = dev_name(dev); - rc = add_memory(numa_node, new_res->start, resource_size(new_res), 0); + rc = add_memory(numa_node, new_res->start, resource_size(new_res), + MHP_NO_FIRMWARE_MEMMAP); if (rc) { release_resource(new_res); kfre...

This is the follow up of [1]: [PATCH v1 0/3] mm/memory_hotplug: Make virtio-mem play nicely with kexec-tools I realized that this is not only helpful for virtio-mem, but also for dax/kmem - it's a fix for that use case (see patch #3) of persistent memory. Also, while testing, I discovered that kexec-tools will *not* add dax/kmem memory (anything not directly under the root when parsing

Some add_memory*() users add memory in small, contiguous memory blocks. Examples include virtio-mem, hyper-v balloon, and the XEN balloon. This can quickly result in a lot of memory resources, whereby the actual resource boundaries are not of interest (e.g., it might be relevant for DIMMs, exposed via /proc/iomem to user space). We really want to merge added resources in this scenario where

This is the follow-up of "[PATCH RFCv1 0/5] mm/memory_hotplug: selective merging of memory resources" [1] Some add_memory*() users add memory in small, contiguous memory blocks. Examples include virtio-mem, hyper-v balloon, and the XEN balloon. This can quickly result in a lot of memory resources, whereby the actual resource boundaries are not of interest (e.g., it might be relevant

Some add_memory*() users add memory in small, contiguous memory blocks. Examples include virtio-mem, hyper-v balloon, and the XEN balloon. This can quickly result in a lot of memory resources, whereby the actual resource boundaries are not of interest (e.g., it might be relevant for DIMMs, exposed via /proc/iomem to user space). We really want to merge added resources in this scenario where

Some add_memory*() users add memory in small, contiguous memory blocks. Examples include virtio-mem, hyper-v balloon, and the XEN balloon. This can quickly result in a lot of memory resources, whereby the actual resource boundaries are not of interest (e.g., it might be relevant for DIMMs, exposed via /proc/iomem to user space). We really want to merge added resources in this scenario where

Some add_memory*() users add memory in small, contiguous memory blocks. Examples include virtio-mem, hyper-v balloon, and the XEN balloon. This can quickly result in a lot of memory resources, whereby the actual resource boundaries are not of interest (e.g., it might be relevant for DIMMs, exposed via /proc/iomem to user space). We really want to merge added resources in this scenario where

This series is based on [1]: [PATCH v2 00/10] virtio-mem: paravirtualized memory That will hopefull get picked up soon, rebased to -next. The following patches were reverted from -next [2]: [PATCH 0/3] kexec/memory_hotplug: Prevent removal and accidental use As discussed in that thread, they should be reverted from -next already. In theory, if people agree, we could take the first two patches

Some add_memory*() users add memory in small, contiguous memory blocks. Examples include virtio-mem, hyper-v balloon, and the XEN balloon. This can quickly result in a lot of memory resources, whereby the actual resource boundaries are not of interest (e.g., it might be relevant for DIMMs, exposed via /proc/iomem to user space). We really want to merge added resources in this scenario where

Some add_memory*() users add memory in small, contiguous memory blocks. Examples include virtio-mem, hyper-v balloon, and the XEN balloon. This can quickly result in a lot of memory resources, whereby the actual resource boundaries are not of interest (e.g., it might be relevant for DIMMs, exposed via /proc/iomem to user space). We really want to merge added resources in this scenario where

Im developing a User model for my application (newbie stuff, but I have to start somewhere). I followed the tutorial at http://sonjayatandon.com/05-2006/how-to-build-a-secured-web-application-with-ruby-on-rails/ and decided to add an email field. The problem is that the email is not being saved on the database and I end up with two email variables: @email and email. validates_presence_of

...16:24:42 1996 - --- ./contrib/host/host.c Wed Apr 9 15:27:05 1997 *************** *** 537,543 **** _res.retrans = DEF_RETRANS; /* timeout in secs between retries */ /* initialize packet id */ ! _res.id = getpid() & 0x7fff; /* save new defaults */ new_res = _res; - --- 537,543 ---- _res.retrans = DEF_RETRANS; /* timeout in secs between retries */ /* initialize packet id */ ! _res.id = res_randomid(); /* save new defaults */ new_res = _res; diff -cNr ../bind-4.9.5-P1-rel/named/ns_main.c ./named/ns_main.c **...