[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <87skxnibb1.fsf@saeurebad.de>
Date: Tue, 15 Apr 2008 13:53:38 +0200
From: Johannes Weiner <hannes@...urebad.de>
To: Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
Yinghai Lu <yhlu.kernel@...il.com>,
Yasunori Goto <y-goto@...fujitsu.com>,
KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com>,
Christoph Lameter <clameter@....com>
Subject: Re: [patch 2/2] bootmem: Node-setup agnostic free_bootmem()
Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org> writes:
> Andrew Morton wrote:
>> On Sun, 13 Apr 2008 18:56:57 +0200 Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org> wrote:
>>
>>> Johannes Weiner <hannes@...urebad.de> writes:
>>>
>>>> Make free_bootmem() look up the node holding the specified address
>>>> range which lets it work transparently on single-node and multi-node
>>>> configurations.
>>> Acked-by: Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>
>>>
>>> This is far better than the original change it replaces and which
>>> I also objected to in review.
>>>
>>
>> So... do we think these two patches are sufficiently safe and important for
>> 2.6.25?
>
> It's only strictly needed for .26 I think for some (also slightly
> dubious) changes queued in git-x86.
Does anything yet rely on this new free_bootmem() behaviour? If not,
the safest thing would be to just revert the original patch in mainline
and drop the second patch completely.
Hannes
--
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