[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1269291846.8599.81.camel@pasglop>
Date: Tue, 23 Mar 2010 08:04:05 +1100
From: Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@...nel.crashing.org>
To: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
Cc: Paul Mackerras <paulus@...ba.org>,
David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
yinghai@...nel.org, tglx@...utronix.de, hpa@...or.com,
jbarnes@...tuousgeek.org, ebiederm@...ssion.com,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-arch@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 06/20] early_res: seperate common memmap func from
e820.c to fw_memmap.c
On Mon, 2010-03-22 at 14:05 +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> * Paul Mackerras <paulus@...ba.org> wrote:
>
> > And I don't see the point of moving the x86 e820 stuff into the kernel
> > directory. [...]
>
> I dont see the point of that either - that is a mistake. e820 is an x86 bios
> call and we shouldnt name a generic mechanism after that. e820 is absolutely
> messy and has no place anywhere beyond x86.
>
> The main technical argument i see is 'early_res versus LMB'. Even there i'd
> prefer LMB from a technical quality POV.
Then we have no argument. The point is, we object to that fw_memmap/e820
stuff taking over for non-x86 architectures. We aren't saying that x86
-must- move to LMB, but if the wish is to have a common implementation
in generic code accross all archs, -then- we object to it being e820.
Ben.
--
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