[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20110216224322.GB29600@atj.dyndns.org>
Date: Wed, 16 Feb 2011 23:43:22 +0100
From: Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
To: Yinghai Lu <yinghai@...nel.org>
Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86, numa: refactoring numa_register_memblks
Hello,
On Wed, Feb 16, 2011 at 12:58:41PM -0800, Yinghai Lu wrote:
>
> Don't hide init_memory_mapping and setup_bootmem into that __register__ function
>
> those are really work.
What does that mean? What isn't really work?
> Also We don't need to scan two times for setup_node_bootmem() becase we
> are using mapped memblock for node_data already.
If this isn't necessary, please make this change in a separate patch.
This involves behavior change.
> @@ -968,6 +969,10 @@ void __init initmem_init(void)
> if (numa_register_memblks(&numa_meminfo) < 0)
> continue;
>
> + init_memory_mapping_high();
> +
> + setup_numa_bootmem(&numa_meminfo);
> +
Sorry, nack. This squarely falls in the realm of bikeshedding and I
plan on collapsing init_memory_mapping_high() into the register
function.
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