On Fri, 05 Mar 2010 21:44:38 -0800 Yinghai Lu <yinghai@kernel.org> wrote:

quoted text
> On 03/05/2010 12:38 PM, Yinghai Lu wrote:
> > if you don't want to drop
> > |  bootmem: avoid DMA32 zone by default
> > 
> > today mainline tree actually DO NOT need that patch according to print out ...
> > 
> > please apply this one too.
> > 
> > [PATCH] x86/bootmem: introduce bootmem_default_goal
> > 
> > don't punish the 64bit systems with less 4G RAM.
> > they should use _pa(MAX_DMA_ADDRESS) at first pass instead of failback...
> 
> andrew,
> 
> please drop Johannes' patch : bootmem: avoid DMA32 zone by default

I'd rather not.  That patch is said to fix a runtime problem which is
present in 2.6.33 and hence we planned on backporting it into 2.6.33.x.

I don't have a clue what your patches do.  Can you tell us?

Earlier, Johannes wrote

: Humm, now that is a bit disappointing.  Because it means we will never
: get rid of bootmem as long as it works for the other architectures. 
: And your changeset just added ~900 lines of code, some of it being a
: rather ugly compatibility layer in bootmem that I hoped could go away
: again sooner than later.
: 
: I do not know what the upsides for x86 are from no longer using bootmem
: but it would suck from a code maintainance point of view to get stuck
: half way through this transition and have now TWO implementations of
: the bootmem interface we would like to get rid of.

Which is a pretty good-sounding argument.  Perhaps we should be
dropping your patches.

What patches _are_ these x86 bootmem changes, anyway?  Please identify
them so people can take a look and see what they do.


--
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/