[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4D5C554E.7050701@kernel.org>
Date: Wed, 16 Feb 2011 14:53:02 -0800
From: Yinghai Lu <yinghai@...nel.org>
To: Tejun Heo <tj@...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
On 02/16/2011 02:43 PM, Tejun Heo wrote:
> 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?
i mean: really initmem init 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.
ok.
>
>> @@ -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.
no. init_memory_mapping_high now it is with early_node_map[], aka it is e820 and srat table overlapping one.
Yinghai
--
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