Re: x86 patches was Re: -mm merge plans for 2.6.24

[Andi Kleen <andi@firstfloor.org>]

> > These are fine to me, but should not all go through my tree
> > because most changes are in other architectures.
> 
> I assume you're referring to just
> convert-cpu_sibling_map-to-be-a-per-cpu-variable* here.

All the *-to-*per-cpu* patches from Mike yes

> 
> > I have nothing pending currently. I rejected
> > also quite a few of these.
> 
> You did?  I'd have dropped them if you had.
> 
> Oh well, I was planning on a maintainer patch-bombing tomorrow - let's go
> through them again.

I'll send you a detailed list after the patch bomb.

> > 
> > Hmm, need to recheck the x86_64 bits I think.
> 
> Thanks.

Done now (adding ccs) 

x86_64-sparsemem_vmemmap-2m-page-size-support.patch
x86_64-sparsemem_vmemmap-vmemmap-x86_64-convert-to-new-helper-based-initialisation.patch          
Look like these two should be merged together

Also I'm concerned about a third variant of memmappery. Can we agree
to only merge that when the old sparsemem support is removed from x86-64? 

Otherwise it looks good to me.

> How come?  Memoryless node can and do occur in real-world machines.  Kernel
> should support that?

But a node is just defined by its memory? 
 
> If so, that might be OK - the app just needs a reliable way of working out
> whether it's on a 32- or 64-bit kernel?

That would be ugly and a little error prone (would this case really be 
tested in user space normally?) but might work.

> 
> > > x86_64-efi-boot-support-efi-frame-buffer-driver.patch
> > > x86_64-efi-boot-support-efi-boot-document.patch
> > 
> > This required changes from review I think. And the previous patch is useless
> > without a boot protocol.
> 
> So should I drop them?

Yes for now please.

e.g. we at least need a patch to actually check the version number
of the boot protocol.

-Andi