[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <49B1BBB8.7010806@zytor.com>
Date: Fri, 06 Mar 2009 16:11:36 -0800
From: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
To: Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@...p.org>
CC: Yinghai Lu <yinghai@...nel.org>, mingo@...e.hu,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Pekka Enberg <penberg@...helsinki.fi>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86: introduce bootmem_state
Jeremy Fitzhardinge wrote:
>
> The total number of states is always going to be subsys1 * subsys2 *
> ..., but folding them all into one state variable only makes sense if we
> have a well-defined set of states *and* transitions between them. But
> even then it implies that we have enough coupling between our subsystems
> that we would even care what their aggregate state is, which is already
> a bad idea. If we keep the internal workings of our subsystems as
> internal details, then having private state variables is the way to go.
>
> The real problem with system_state is that it has a few broadly-defined
> values, but no real explanation of what they mean, so they end up
> getting used in inappropriate ways (like the virt_addr_valid() thing I
> fixed yesterday).
>
Obviously.
-hpa
--
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