[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4C57895C.1070402@zytor.com>
Date: Mon, 02 Aug 2010 20:13:32 -0700
From: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
To: Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@...nel.crashing.org>
CC: Russell King <rmk@....linux.org.uk>,
Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, linux-next@...r.kernel.org,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Yinghai Lu <yinghai@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: linux-next: build failure after merge of the final tree (tip
tree related)
On 08/02/2010 06:42 PM, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
>
> I'm happy to wait and sit on the memblock churn until after ARM's in.
>
> I can then fixup my patches.
>
As far as x86 is concerned, I would like to try to get the whole thing
into -tip fairly early in a kernel cycle, so that it can get -tip/-next
testing for a while before merging.
I would much rather smoke out bugs like the qla2xxx failing to implement
.shutdown and therefore doing DMA on random memory than just paper it
over by functionally re-implementing a bunch of the memblock guts in x86.
I still think that the memblock approach of having a separate data
structure for all of memory and one for various used blocks is flawed,
and that it would be a lot better to have a single data structure with
attributes. It would definitely make allocation saner. Given that,
there is a strong reason to keep as little of the guts exposed as possible.
-hpa
--
H. Peter Anvin, Intel Open Source Technology Center
I work for Intel. I don't speak on their behalf.
--
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