[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4BF0DD98.1090904@oracle.com>
Date: Sun, 16 May 2010 23:09:28 -0700
From: Yinghai <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 07/37] lmb: Add lmb_find_area()
On 05/16/2010 05:48 PM, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
> On Fri, 2010-05-14 at 16:08 -0700, Yinghai wrote:
>> how about
>> lmb_reserve_area ==> lmb_reserve_range
>> lmb_free_area ==> lmb_free_range
>
> I completely fail to see why you still need those two. They are exactly
> the same thing as lmb_reserve() and lmb_free(), just with a slightly
> different prototype.
>
>> or leave them that way, later replace them lmb_reserve and lmb_free
>> one by one?
>
> Nah, if you have some use of the wrappers to ease the transition from
> the existing x86 code, then just make up a couple of inline wrappers
> somewhere inside the x86 code. You may not even want to call it
> lmb_* at all...
can you move asm/lmb.h down in linux/lmb.h ?
so I can put the inline wrapper in arch/x86/include/asm/lmb.h.
>
> But here, I'll let Thomas and Peter decide what to do, it's really
> x86 stuff at this stage. I don't want to see two subtlely different
> APIs at the LMB level doing the same thing.
>
> Cheers,
> 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