[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <C1FBB152.99B0%keir@xensource.com>
Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2007 19:06:58 +0000
From: Keir Fraser <keir@...source.com>
To: Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@...p.org>,
Keir Fraser <keir@...source.com>
CC: Zachary Amsden <zach@...are.com>, <xen-devel@...ts.xensource.com>,
Ian Pratt <ian.pratt@...source.com>,
<virtualization@...ts.osdl.org>, <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Jan Beulich <JBeulich@...ell.com>,
Chris Wright <chrisw@...s-sol.org>, Andi Kleen <ak@....de>,
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
On 16/2/07 17:27, "Jeremy Fitzhardinge" <jeremy@...p.org> wrote:
> 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).
Then the call will have to be CONFIG_X86. I hadn't realised powerpc were
also using lock_vm_area. However I suspect that the x86 issue that those
functions were written doesn't even exist on powerpc, or any other non-x86
architecture.
I guess we should change the name of alloc_vm_area, by the way. Perhaps
alloc_vm_area_sync() or similar, to give some hint of what it's doing and
how it differs from other vmalloc-area functions?
-- Keir
-
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