[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <45D5E98B.4070904@goop.org>
Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2007 09:27:39 -0800
From: Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@...p.org>
To: Keir Fraser <keir@...source.com>
CC: Andi Kleen <ak@....de>, Zachary Amsden <zach@...are.com>,
xen-devel@...ts.xensource.com, virtualization@...ts.osdl.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Jan Beulich <JBeulich@...ell.com>,
Chris Wright <chrisw@...s-sol.org>,
Ian Pratt <ian.pratt@...source.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Christian Limpach <Christian.Limpach@...cam.ac.uk>
Subject: Re: [Xen-devel] Re: [patch 12/21] Xen-paravirt: Allocate and free
vmalloc areas
Keir Fraser wrote:
> On 16/2/07 17:10, "Keir Fraser" <keir@...source.com> wrote:
>
>
>> On 16/2/07 16:46, "Jeremy Fitzhardinge" <jeremy@...p.org> wrote:
>>
>>
>>> Yes, that would work. Unfortunately that's i386 arch-specific, whereas
>>> the rest of this code is generic. I guess I could just move it all to
>>> arch/i386/mm.
>>>
>> This whole thing isn't an issue on ia64 (they no-op lock_vm_area) and
>> powerpc doesn't use any of the Xen driver code at this time.
>> vmalloc_sync_all is supported by both i386 and x86_64, so we can make the
>> call conditional on CONFIG_X86 so that ia64 will continue to build. This is
>> what I've done in xen-unstable.
>>
>
>
> In fact that file is only built for i386 and x86_64, so there really is no
> problem with using vmalloc_sync_all() directly and without ifdef.
>
I had moved it to mm/vmalloc.c in response to previous review comments
(namely, its not Xen specific, so it shouldn't live in the Xen part of
the tree).
J
-
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