[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20110214182718.GB18742@htj.dyndns.org>
Date: Mon, 14 Feb 2011 19:27:18 +0100
From: Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
To: Yinghai Lu <yinghai@...nel.org>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, x86@...nel.org, brgerst@...il.com,
gorcunov@...il.com, shaohui.zheng@...el.com, rientjes@...gle.com,
mingo@...e.hu, hpa@...ux.intel.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 15/26] x86-64, NUMA: Unify the rest of memblk
registration
Hello,
On Mon, Feb 14, 2011 at 10:14:15AM -0800, Yinghai Lu wrote:
> I just want seperate setup_bootmem ( and maybe init_memory_mapping_high...)
> out that __register__ function.
>
> that __register__ function do some sth like memblock_register to
> early_node_map[] looks reasonable.
Can you please provide some rationales _why_ you think setup_bootmem()
should be moved elsewhere? Because it is not apparent to me and I
cannot read your mind. I'm not against it given good enough reasons.
After all, _technically_ it doesn't make one iota of difference, but I
don't want to change it just because you don't like it and I don't
think you want that either, so _please_ give me some explanations
about what you want and _why_. It's not like we're involved in a
romantic relationship and even when I'm in one I suck at that implied
communication thing.
Thanks.
--
tejun
--
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