| lists.openwall.net | lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC | |
|
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
| ||
|
Date: Mon, 14 Feb 2011 19:27:18 +0100 From: Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org> To: Yinghai Lu <yinghai@...nel.org> Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, x86@...nel.org, brgerst@...il.com, gorcunov@...il.com, shaohui.zheng@...el.com, rientjes@...gle.com, mingo@...e.hu, hpa@...ux.intel.com Subject: Re: [PATCH 15/26] x86-64, NUMA: Unify the rest of memblk registration Hello, On Mon, Feb 14, 2011 at 10:14:15AM -0800, Yinghai Lu wrote: > I just want seperate setup_bootmem ( and maybe init_memory_mapping_high...) > out that __register__ function. > > that __register__ function do some sth like memblock_register to > early_node_map[] looks reasonable. Can you please provide some rationales _why_ you think setup_bootmem() should be moved elsewhere? Because it is not apparent to me and I cannot read your mind. I'm not against it given good enough reasons. After all, _technically_ it doesn't make one iota of difference, but I don't want to change it just because you don't like it and I don't think you want that either, so _please_ give me some explanations about what you want and _why_. It's not like we're involved in a romantic relationship and even when I'm in one I suck at that implied communication thing. Thanks. -- tejun -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists