[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4BED7CE3.1020507@oracle.com>
Date: Fri, 14 May 2010 09:40:03 -0700
From: Yinghai Lu <yinghai.lu@...cle.com>
To: Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@...nel.crashing.org>
CC: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-arch@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 15/35] x86, lmb: Add lmb_reserve_area_overlap_ok()
On 05/14/2010 01:30 AM, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
> On Thu, 2010-05-13 at 23:44 -0700, Yinghai wrote:
>
>> On 05/13/2010 07:32 PM, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
>>
>>> On Thu, 2010-05-13 at 17:19 -0700, Yinghai Lu wrote:
>>>
>>>> Some areas from firmware could be reserved several times from different callers.
>>>>
>>>> If these area are overlapped, We may have overlapped entries in lmb.reserved.
>>>>
>>>> Try to free the area at first, before rerserve them again.
>>>>
>>> I have already told you to make this a property of lmb_reserve() instead
>>> of adding that function with a terrible name.
>>>
>> make every lmb_reserve() call lmb_free at first?
>>
> Either that, or make it check for collisions first, and if there's
> one, call free and try again. A little bit more work but I plan toq
> make it smarter at some stage, ie, directly adjust surrounding ranges
> instead which is not -that- hard to do.
>
>
later, after this patchset. this patchset is hanging around too long
already.
YH
--
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