[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAHqTa-3p1sS1QvT3bg4UAo9G8Hq+-PJsSxBAz_P8pf+tdEOq4Q@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 13 Mar 2012 22:23:18 -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().
On Tue, Mar 13, 2012 at 5:50 PM, Yinghai Lu <yinghai@...nel.org> wrote:
> Now you put back bootmem calling early, will cause confusion.
[...]
> we should use adding memblock_alloc calling instead... go backward...
Okay, I'm convinced. I've updated my series so CONFIG_PRINTK_PERSIST
only works with HAVE_MEMBLOCK, and I've removed the patch to
unconditionally call bootmem in the existing non-PRINTK_PERSIST case.
(I'll upload the patches later once the other threads play out.)
Thanks for the quick feedback!
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