> 
quoted text
> I doubt either Greg or Dave suggested adding duplicate interfaces for the 
> same functionality.
> 
> The difference is that we needed to add the add_node interface in a new 
> mem_hotplug debugfs directory because it's only useful for debugging 
> kernel code and, thus, doesn't really have an appropriate place in sysfs.  
> Nobody is going to use add_node unless they lack hotpluggable memory 
> sections in their SRAT and want to debug the memory hotplug callers.  For 
> example, I already wrote all of this node hotplug emulation stuff when I 
> wrote the node hotplug support for SLAB.
> 
> Memory hotplug, however, does serve a non-debugging function and is 
> appropriate in sysfs since this is how people hotplug memory.  It's an ABI 
> that we can't simply remove without deprecation over a substantial period 
> of time and in this case it doesn't seem to have a clear advantage.  We 
> need not add special emulation support for something that is already 
> possible for real systems, so adding a duplicate interface in debugfs is 
> inappropriate.

so we should still keep the sysfs memory/probe interface without any modifications,
but for the debugfs mem_hotplug/probe interface, we can add the memory region 
to a desired node. It is an extention for the sysfs memory/probe interface, it can 
be used for memory hotplug emulation. Do I understand it correctly?

-- 
Thanks & Regards,
Shaohui

--
unsubscribe notice
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/