From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Yinghai Lu Subject: Re: [PATCH 06/20] early_res: seperate common memmap func from e820.c to fw_memmap.cy Date: Mon, 22 Mar 2010 13:07:55 -0700 Message-ID: <4BA7CE1B.9070109@kernel.org> 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> <20100322193720.GA2844@elte.hu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from hera.kernel.org ([140.211.167.34]:60462 "EHLO hera.kernel.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753800Ab0CVUJK (ORCPT ); Mon, 22 Mar 2010 16:09:10 -0400 In-Reply-To: <20100322193720.GA2844@elte.hu> Sender: linux-arch-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: To: Ingo Molnar Cc: Thomas Gleixner , David Miller , Andrew Morton , Linus Torvalds , benh@kernel.crashing.org, hpa@zytor.com, jbarnes@virtuousgeek.org, ebiederm@xmission.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-arch@vger.kernel.org On 03/22/2010 12:37 PM, Ingo Molnar wrote: > > * Thomas Gleixner wrote: > >> Ingo, >> >> On Mon, 22 Mar 2010, Ingo Molnar wrote: >>> >>> ( Cc:-ed Andrew and Linus as this is a general design/policy matter wrt. >>> memory management. ) >>> >>> * David Miller wrote: >>> >>>> From: Yinghai Lu >>>> Date: Sun, 21 Mar 2010 21:28:38 -0700 >>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> That action means you absolutely don't value our feedback at all. >>>>> >>>>> [PATCH 01/20] x86: add find_e820_area_node >>>>> is addressing your concern that early_res didn't handle memory cross the nodes problem. >>>> >>>> Now I know that you _REALLY_ aren't listening to us. >> >>> [ He has done a bit more than just to simply listen: he seems to >>> have written a patch which he thinks is addressing the concerns you >>> pointed out. It might not be the response you wished for (and it >>> might be inadequate) for but it sure gives me the impression of him >>> listening to you - unless by 'listening' you mean 'follow my exact >>> opinion without argument'. ] >> >> I tend to disagree. Fixing the bug pointed out by Dave is not really a >> good argument about listening. >> >> The main point is that there is still no answer why lmb cannot be used and >> the reposted patch still is a full move of the x86 e820 functions into >> kernel/fw_memmap.c. >> >> That's not a generalization, that's simply a relocation of x86 code to >> kernel/. And I agree with Dave and Ben that this is an useless exercise. > > ok - i think you are right. Yinghai, mind having a look at using lib/lmb.c for > all this? 1. need to keep e820 2. use e820 range with RAM to fill lmb.memory when finizing_e820 3. use lmb.reserved to replace early_res. current lmb is merging the region, we can not use name tag any more. may need to dump early_memtest, and use early_res for bootmem at first. YH