From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Ingo Molnar Subject: Re: [PATCH 06/20] early_res: seperate common memmap func from e820.c to fw_memmap.c Date: Mon, 22 Mar 2010 21:57:03 +0100 Message-ID: <20100322205703.GA25254@elte.hu> References: <4BA6EA62.1030603@kernel.org> <20100321.210023.209981130.davem@davemloft.net> <4BA6F1F6.3070102@kernel.org> <20100321.213350.176660494.davem@davemloft.net> <20100322092809.GA20607@elte.hu> <1269290862.8599.77.camel@pasglop> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Received: from mx2.mail.elte.hu ([157.181.151.9]:44458 "EHLO mx2.mail.elte.hu" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752137Ab0CVU5c (ORCPT ); Mon, 22 Mar 2010 16:57:32 -0400 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1269290862.8599.77.camel@pasglop> Sender: linux-arch-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: To: Benjamin Herrenschmidt Cc: David Miller , Andrew Morton , Linus Torvalds , yinghai@kernel.org, tglx@linutronix.de, hpa@zytor.com, jbarnes@virtuousgeek.org, ebiederm@xmission.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-arch@vger.kernel.org * Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote: > On Mon, 2010-03-22 at 10:28 +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote: > > Note the other side of the coin: LMB appears to be deployed on only 4 > > non-x86 architectures that muster ~1% of the Linux boxes while early_res > > is deployed on more than 95%. > > You use that arguemnt ONE MORE FUCKING TIME and you'll end up in my killfile > with a auto-NACK reply of anything that looks like a patch from you. Does this mean you disagree with that? (I think it's pretty factual, last i checked the usage stats of devel kernels was somewhere around 99.7%.) In any case, i dont dispute that LMB is a bit cleaner than kernel/early_res.c - and both are much cleaner than the new e820 kernel/fw_memmap.c code posted here by Yinghai. If you dont disagree then please spare me the insults. (or move me into your killfile) Thanks, Ingo