[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1280809955.1902.85.camel@pasglop>
Date: Tue, 03 Aug 2010 14:32:35 +1000
From: Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@...nel.crashing.org>
To: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
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 Mon, 2010-08-02 at 20:13 -0700, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
> 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.
I agree, and in fact, turning the current implementation into a single
list with attributes wouldn't necessarily be that hard as a first step.
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