From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S261166AbTEQCV1 (ORCPT ); Fri, 16 May 2003 22:21:27 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S261300AbTEQCV1 (ORCPT ); Fri, 16 May 2003 22:21:27 -0400 Received: from dp.samba.org ([66.70.73.150]:57522 "EHLO lists.samba.org") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S261166AbTEQCV0 (ORCPT ); Fri, 16 May 2003 22:21:26 -0400 From: Rusty Russell To: "David S. Miller" Cc: akpm@zip.com.au, torvalds@transmeta.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, davidm@hpl.hp.com, rth@twiddle.net Subject: Re: [PATCH] Unlimited per-cpu allocation In-reply-to: Your message of "Thu, 15 May 2003 22:42:32 MST." <20030515.224232.63031915.davem@redhat.com> Date: Sat, 17 May 2003 11:58:55 +1000 Message-Id: <20030517023420.7FCE42C04F@lists.samba.org> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org In message <20030515.224232.63031915.davem@redhat.com> you write: > From: Rusty Russell > Date: Fri, 16 May 2003 15:30:36 +1000 > > D: This patch allows an unlimited number of per-cpu allocations. > > Except, of course, on IA64. Maybe I missed the end of some thread, > but I thought we had all agreed that this kind of limitation was > a showstopper. Not breaking IA64 is nice, but it's not an inherent "IA64 can't do it" thing. IA64 could just use the generic mechanism, like everyone else. But they do the tricky 64k mapping thing. As I pointed out, maybe their decision would have to be rethought if that proves inadaquate. Cheers, Rusty. -- Anyone who quotes me in their sig is an idiot. -- Rusty Russell.