[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20090306160119.f80dd874.akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Date: Fri, 6 Mar 2009 16:01:19 -0800
From: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
To: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
Cc: jeremy@...p.org, yinghai@...nel.org, mingo@...e.hu,
tglx@...utronix.de, penberg@...helsinki.fi,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86: introduce bootmem_state
On Fri, 06 Mar 2009 15:34:01 -0800
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com> wrote:
> Jeremy Fitzhardinge wrote:
> >
> > Please, no. system_state should be deprecated; its hard enough to have
> > a notion of some kind of system-wide state, but putting subsystem
> > specific substates into it just makes things worse.
> >
>
> Does it? It seems to me to have a bunch of state variables which can
> interact in $DEITY knows how many ways sounds like a bad idea.
>
No, that's the whole point. If each subsystem adds its own
subsystem-private state then the subsystems *won't* interact.
--
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