From: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
To: Bernhard Walle <bwalle@suse.de>
Cc: x86@kernel.org, kexec@lists.infradead.org,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, vgoyal@redhat.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] firmware/memmap: Move kobject initialisation before kobject_add()
Date: Wed, 30 Jul 2008 13:40:11 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20080730134011.24d10dfe.akpm@linux-foundation.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20080730221424.0d997fb0@kopernikus.site>
On Wed, 30 Jul 2008 22:14:24 +0200
Bernhard Walle <bwalle@suse.de> wrote:
> * Bernhard Walle <bwalle@suse.de> [2008-07-30 22:12]:
> >
> > Because kobject_init() call could be done from firmware_map_add_entry()
> > which is called before kmalloc() can be used (we use the early bootmem allocator
> > here), move that call to memmap_init() which is a late_initcall.
>
> You can leave out that patch now since kobject_init() was adapted with
> the other patch ... But I think it would still make sense to include
> that one.
What one? Your thises and thats are confusing.
If you think that "firmware/memmap: Move kobject initialisation before
kobject_add()" should still be applied then I'd disagree. Adding a
GFP_KERNEL allocation into kobject_init() was a fairly significant
backward step. It's _good_ that kobject_init() can be called this
early. Let us strive to retain that robustness.
_______________________________________________
kexec mailing list
kexec@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/kexec
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
To: Bernhard Walle <bwalle@suse.de>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, kexec@lists.infradead.org,
vgoyal@redhat.com, x86@kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] firmware/memmap: Move kobject initialisation before kobject_add()
Date: Wed, 30 Jul 2008 13:40:11 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20080730134011.24d10dfe.akpm@linux-foundation.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20080730221424.0d997fb0@kopernikus.site>
On Wed, 30 Jul 2008 22:14:24 +0200
Bernhard Walle <bwalle@suse.de> wrote:
> * Bernhard Walle <bwalle@suse.de> [2008-07-30 22:12]:
> >
> > Because kobject_init() call could be done from firmware_map_add_entry()
> > which is called before kmalloc() can be used (we use the early bootmem allocator
> > here), move that call to memmap_init() which is a late_initcall.
>
> You can leave out that patch now since kobject_init() was adapted with
> the other patch ... But I think it would still make sense to include
> that one.
What one? Your thises and thats are confusing.
If you think that "firmware/memmap: Move kobject initialisation before
kobject_add()" should still be applied then I'd disagree. Adding a
GFP_KERNEL allocation into kobject_init() was a fairly significant
backward step. It's _good_ that kobject_init() can be called this
early. Let us strive to retain that robustness.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2008-07-30 20:40 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 14+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2008-07-30 20:12 Fixes for firmware/memmap Bernhard Walle
2008-07-30 20:12 ` Bernhard Walle
2008-07-30 20:12 ` [PATCH 1/2] firmware/memmap: Cleanup Bernhard Walle
2008-07-30 20:12 ` Bernhard Walle
2008-07-30 20:12 ` [PATCH 2/2] firmware/memmap: Move kobject initialisation before kobject_add() Bernhard Walle
2008-07-30 20:12 ` Bernhard Walle
2008-07-30 20:14 ` Bernhard Walle
2008-07-30 20:14 ` Bernhard Walle
2008-07-30 20:40 ` Andrew Morton [this message]
2008-07-30 20:40 ` Andrew Morton
2008-07-30 20:47 ` Bernhard Walle
2008-07-30 20:47 ` Bernhard Walle
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2008-07-12 0:36 [PATCH 1/2] Add /sys/firmware/memmap Andrew Morton
2008-07-12 22:15 ` [PATCH 2/2] firmware/memmap: Move kobject initialisation before kobject_add() Bernhard Walle
2008-07-12 22:15 ` Bernhard Walle
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20080730134011.24d10dfe.akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--to=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=bwalle@suse.de \
--cc=kexec@lists.infradead.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=vgoyal@redhat.com \
--cc=x86@kernel.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.