From: Johannes Weiner <hannes@saeurebad.de>
To: Andi Kleen <andi@firstfloor.org>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>,
Yinghai Lu <yhlu.kernel@gmail.com>,
Yasunori Goto <y-goto@jp.fujitsu.com>,
KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com>,
Christoph Lameter <clameter@sgi.com>
Subject: Re: [patch 2/2] bootmem: Node-setup agnostic free_bootmem()
Date: Tue, 15 Apr 2008 13:53:38 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <87skxnibb1.fsf@saeurebad.de> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <48045D6C.1010508@firstfloor.org> (Andi Kleen's message of "Tue, 15 Apr 2008 09:46:52 +0200")
Andi Kleen <andi@firstfloor.org> writes:
> Andrew Morton wrote:
>> On Sun, 13 Apr 2008 18:56:57 +0200 Andi Kleen <andi@firstfloor.org> wrote:
>>
>>> Johannes Weiner <hannes@saeurebad.de> writes:
>>>
>>>> Make free_bootmem() look up the node holding the specified address
>>>> range which lets it work transparently on single-node and multi-node
>>>> configurations.
>>> Acked-by: Andi Kleen <andi@firstfloor.org>
>>>
>>> This is far better than the original change it replaces and which
>>> I also objected to in review.
>>>
>>
>> So... do we think these two patches are sufficiently safe and important for
>> 2.6.25?
>
> It's only strictly needed for .26 I think for some (also slightly
> dubious) changes queued in git-x86.
Does anything yet rely on this new free_bootmem() behaviour? If not,
the safest thing would be to just revert the original patch in mainline
and drop the second patch completely.
Hannes
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2008-04-15 11:54 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 21+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2008-04-12 22:33 [patch 0/2] bootmem: Fix node-setup agnostic free_bootmem() Johannes Weiner
2008-04-12 22:33 ` [patch 1/2] bootmem: Revert "mm: fix boundary checking in free_bootmem_core" Johannes Weiner
2008-04-13 1:55 ` Yinghai Lu
2008-04-12 22:33 ` [patch 2/2] bootmem: Node-setup agnostic free_bootmem() Johannes Weiner
2008-04-13 1:59 ` Yinghai Lu
2008-04-13 10:57 ` Johannes Weiner
2008-04-13 16:56 ` Andi Kleen
2008-04-15 6:23 ` Andrew Morton
2008-04-15 7:04 ` Yinghai Lu
2008-04-15 7:15 ` Andrew Morton
2008-04-15 7:28 ` Yinghai Lu
2008-04-15 7:36 ` Andrew Morton
2008-04-15 11:51 ` Johannes Weiner
2008-04-15 18:52 ` Yinghai Lu
2008-04-15 19:43 ` Johannes Weiner
2008-04-15 7:46 ` Andi Kleen
2008-04-15 11:53 ` Johannes Weiner [this message]
2008-04-15 18:44 ` Yinghai Lu
2008-04-15 19:51 ` Johannes Weiner
2008-04-15 19:57 ` Yinghai Lu
2008-04-15 20:05 ` 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=87skxnibb1.fsf@saeurebad.de \
--to=hannes@saeurebad.de \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=andi@firstfloor.org \
--cc=clameter@sgi.com \
--cc=kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mingo@elte.hu \
--cc=y-goto@jp.fujitsu.com \
--cc=yhlu.kernel@gmail.com \
/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.