[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20090306113054.4ae4b875.akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Date: Fri, 6 Mar 2009 11:30:54 -0800
From: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
To: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
Cc: yinghai@...nel.org, tglx@...utronix.de, hpa@...or.com,
penberg@...helsinki.fi, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86: introduce bootmem_state -v2
On Fri, 6 Mar 2009 20:12:49 +0100
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu> wrote:
>
> * Yinghai Lu <yinghai@...nel.org> wrote:
>
> >
> > Impact: cleanup
> >
> > extend after_bootmem and after_init_bootmem to bootmem_state
> > and will have BEFORE_BOOTMEM, DURING_BOOTMEM, AFTER_BOOTMEM
> >
> > v2: style changes according to ingo
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Yinghai Lu <yinghai@...nel.org>
> >
> > ---
> > arch/x86/kernel/setup.c | 1 +
> > arch/x86/mm/init.c | 13 +++++++------
> > arch/x86/mm/init_32.c | 28 ++++++++++++++++++++--------
> > arch/x86/mm/init_64.c | 33 +++++++++++++++++++--------------
> > include/linux/mm.h | 9 +++++++++
> > 5 files changed, 56 insertions(+), 28 deletions(-)
>
> > Index: linux-2.6/include/linux/mm.h
> > ===================================================================
> > --- linux-2.6.orig/include/linux/mm.h
> > +++ linux-2.6/include/linux/mm.h
> > @@ -1067,6 +1067,15 @@ extern void __init mmap_init(void);
> > extern void show_mem(void);
> > extern void si_meminfo(struct sysinfo * val);
> > extern void si_meminfo_node(struct sysinfo *val, int nid);
> > +
> > +enum bootmem_state {
> > + BEFORE_BOOTMEM,
> > + DURING_BOOTMEM,
> > + AFTER_BOOTMEM
> > +};
> > +
> > +extern enum bootmem_state bootmem_state;
> > +
> > extern int after_bootmem;
>
> Btw., the after_bootmem variable itself should either move to
> x86 (and arch/sh), or should be defined in mm/bootmem.c.
>
> Right now we have this weird mm.h construct that is not actually
> useful to generic code.
>
> Andrew, what would be your preference?
>
If two architectures are using it then it should be provided by core
kernel?
This is obvious if the state transitions are occurring in core-kernel
code, but if the transitions are happening in arch code then making it
a core concept assumes consistency between different architectures
which might not exist.
IOW: dunno.
--
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