From: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
To: Yinghai Lu <yinghai@kernel.org>
Cc: Greg Thelen <gthelen@google.com>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>,
Johannes Weiner <hannes@cmpxchg.org>,
linux-mm@kvack.org,
"linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: please don't apply : bootmem: avoid DMA32 zone by default
Date: Sat, 6 Mar 2010 16:22:34 -0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20100306162234.e2cc84fb.akpm@linux-foundation.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <4B91EBC6.6080509@kernel.org>
On Fri, 05 Mar 2010 21:44:38 -0800 Yinghai Lu <yinghai@kernel.org> wrote:
> 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.
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
To: Yinghai Lu <yinghai@kernel.org>
Cc: Greg Thelen <gthelen@google.com>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>,
Johannes Weiner <hannes@cmpxchg.org>,
linux-mm@kvack.org,
"linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: please don't apply : bootmem: avoid DMA32 zone by default
Date: Sat, 6 Mar 2010 16:22:34 -0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20100306162234.e2cc84fb.akpm@linux-foundation.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <4B91EBC6.6080509@kernel.org>
On Fri, 05 Mar 2010 21:44:38 -0800 Yinghai Lu <yinghai@kernel.org> wrote:
> 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.
--
To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
the body to majordomo@kvack.org. For more info on Linux MM,
see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@kvack.org"> email@kvack.org </a>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2010-03-07 0:23 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 48+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2010-03-04 21:21 mmotm boot panic bootmem-avoid-dma32-zone-by-default.patch Greg Thelen
2010-03-05 3:21 ` Johannes Weiner
2010-03-05 5:00 ` Yinghai Lu
2010-03-05 5:14 ` Yinghai Lu
2010-03-05 12:51 ` Johannes Weiner
2010-03-05 16:38 ` Yinghai
2010-03-05 5:17 ` Greg Thelen
2010-03-05 5:34 ` Greg Thelen
2010-03-05 18:41 ` Yinghai Lu
2010-03-05 18:41 ` Yinghai Lu
2010-03-05 19:09 ` Greg Thelen
2010-03-05 19:09 ` Greg Thelen
2010-03-05 20:38 ` [PATCH] x86/bootmem: introduce bootmem_default_goal Yinghai Lu
2010-03-05 20:38 ` Yinghai Lu
2010-03-06 5:44 ` please don't apply : bootmem: avoid DMA32 zone by default Yinghai Lu
2010-03-06 5:44 ` Yinghai Lu
2010-03-07 0:22 ` Andrew Morton [this message]
2010-03-07 0:22 ` Andrew Morton
2010-03-07 0:42 ` Yinghai Lu
2010-03-07 0:42 ` Yinghai Lu
2010-03-07 0:53 ` Yinghai Lu
2010-03-07 0:53 ` Yinghai Lu
2010-03-07 2:15 ` [PATCH] sparsemem: on no vmemmap path put mem_map on node high too Yinghai Lu
2010-03-07 1:03 ` please don't apply : bootmem: avoid DMA32 zone by default Paul Mackerras
2010-03-07 1:03 ` Paul Mackerras
2010-03-07 1:48 ` Stephen Rothwell
2010-03-07 9:16 ` Russell King
2010-03-07 9:16 ` Russell King
2010-03-05 23:58 ` mmotm boot panic bootmem-avoid-dma32-zone-by-default.patch Johannes Weiner
2010-03-05 23:58 ` Johannes Weiner
2010-03-06 1:50 ` Yinghai Lu
2010-03-06 1:50 ` Yinghai Lu
2010-03-06 2:24 ` Johannes Weiner
2010-03-06 2:24 ` Johannes Weiner
2010-03-06 2:31 ` Yinghai Lu
2010-03-06 2:31 ` Yinghai Lu
2010-03-05 9:04 ` Yinghai Lu
2010-03-05 9:04 ` Yinghai Lu
2010-03-05 10:26 ` Jiri Slaby
2010-03-05 10:26 ` Jiri Slaby
2010-03-05 20:27 ` Yinghai Lu
2010-03-07 1:17 ` Yinghai Lu
2010-03-11 10:54 ` Jiri Slaby
2010-03-11 20:12 ` Yinghai Lu
2010-03-11 21:40 ` Jiri Slaby
2010-03-11 21:42 ` Yinghai Lu
2010-03-05 13:08 ` Johannes Weiner
2010-03-05 13:08 ` Johannes Weiner
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=20100306162234.e2cc84fb.akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--to=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=gthelen@google.com \
--cc=hannes@cmpxchg.org \
--cc=hpa@zytor.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
--cc=mingo@elte.hu \
--cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
--cc=yinghai@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.