[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAHqTa-0b1DBDNYzDQ6UHHCivF9S-H3zvZWH0KZ21OQ8gQq6WYg@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 13 Mar 2012 02:40:50 -0400
From: Avery Pennarun <apenwarr@...il.com>
To: Yinghai Lu <yinghai@...nel.org>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Josh Triplett <josh@...htriplett.org>,
"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>,
"Fabio M. Di Nitto" <fdinitto@...hat.com>,
Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>,
Olaf Hering <olaf@...fle.de>,
Paul Gortmaker <paul.gortmaker@...driver.com>,
Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...ux.intel.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/5] printk: use alloc_bootmem() instead of memblock_alloc().
> that seems not right.
>
> for x86, setup_log_buf(1) is quite early called in setup_arch() before
> bootmem is there.
>
> bootmem should be killed after memblock is supported for arch that
> current support bootmem.
Hmm. x86 uses nobootmem.c, which implements bootmem in terms of
memblock anyway. It is definitely working at setup_log_buf() time (or
else it wouldn't be able to select a sensible buffer location).
I suppose you're saying that it wouldn't work for a hypothetical
architecture that *does* support bootmem and *also* supports
setup_log_buf(1). Will there ever be such an architecture, or will
bootmem be retired first?
Thanks,
Avery
--
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