On Wed, 2 Apr 2008 18:30:24 -0700 Yinghai Lu <yhlu.kernel.send@gmail.com> wrote:

quoted text
> v2 replace:
> 	[PATCH] mm: make mem_map allocation continuous.
> 	[PATCH] mm: allocate section_map for sparse_init
> 	[PATCH] mm: allocate usemap at first instead of mem_map in sparse_init
> 

err, no.

quoted text
> 
> diff --git a/mm/sparse.c b/mm/sparse.c
> index f6a43c0..2881222 100644
> --- a/mm/sparse.c
> +++ b/mm/sparse.c

Sorry, but I'd rather not do it this way.  We presently have this:

mm-make-mem_map-allocation-continuous.patch
mm-make-mem_map-allocation-continuous-checkpatch-fixes.patch
mm-fix-alloc_bootmem_core-to-use-fast-searching-for-all-nodes.patch
mm-allocate-section_map-for-sparse_init.patch
mm-allocate-section_map-for-sparse_init-update.patch
mm-allocate-section_map-for-sparse_init-update-fix.patch
mm-allocate-section_map-for-sparse_init-powerpc-fix.patch
mm-offset-align-in-alloc_bootmem.patch
mm-make-reserve_bootmem-can-crossed-the-nodes.patch
mm-make-reserve_bootmem-can-crossed-the-nodes-checkpatch-fixes.patch

and you purport to throw some of them away and combine them into a single
patch?  We assume that the later patches will still apply and work on top
of this newer patch?  It is up to me to check that the replacement patch
incorporates the third-party changes to the original patches?

Too hard, too risky.  Can't we just do a fix against 2.6.25-rc8-mm1?
--
unsubscribe notice
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/