* Yinghai Lu <yinghai@kernel.org> wrote:

quoted text
> > 2)
> > 
> > I think we also need to concentrate the changes back into LMB:
> 
> yes. put them in kernel/early_res.c and move them to lmb.c if lmb gugs are 
> happy with the change.

Yes, they seemed OK with changing it to accomodate x86, as long as current 
behavior stays compatible and as long as the changes are squeaky-clean.

Both of which are highly reasonable expectations ;-)

quoted text
> > early_res.h will go away as well and all the new APIs will be in lmb.h.
> 
> current have three levels
> a. old lmb users
> b. x86 with bootmem
> c. x86 with no-bootmem
> 
> some functions later could be moved to new bootmem.c

I think we want to work towards the end result where we dont have bootmem.c 
anymore. I.e. a modern LMB architecture should generally not make use of 
bootmem at all.

We could do that switch on x86 straight away, and make CONFIG_NO_BOOTMEM a 
default-y option, hm? We could also hide the interactivity behind 
CONFIG_DEBUG_VM or so - and eliminate it altogether later on.

We should also switch around the flag and turn it into CONFIG_BOOTMEM.

Hm?

	Ingo
--
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/