From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: mina86@mina86.com (Michal Nazarewicz) Date: Tue, 01 Nov 2011 19:06:56 +0100 Subject: [PATCH 2/9] mm: alloc_contig_freed_pages() added In-Reply-To: <20111101150448.GD14998@csn.ul.ie> References: <20111018122109.GB6660@csn.ul.ie> <809d0a2afe624c06505e0df51e7657f66aaf9007.1319428526.git.mina86@mina86.com> <20111101150448.GD14998@csn.ul.ie> Message-ID: To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org On Tue, 01 Nov 2011 16:04:48 +0100, Mel Gorman wrote: > For the purposes of review, have a separate patch for moving > isolate_freepages_block to another file that does not alter the > function in any way. When the function is updated in a follow-on patch, > it'll be far easier to see what has changed. Will do. > page_isolation.c may also be a better fit than page_alloc.c Since isolate_freepages_block() is the only user of split_free_page(), would it make sense to move split_free_page() to page_isolation.c as well? I sort of like the idea of making it static and removing from header file. > I confess I didn't read closely because of the mess in page_alloc.c but > the intent seems fine. No worries. I just needed for a quick comment whether I'm headed the right direction. :) > Hopefully there will be a new version of CMA posted that will be easier > to review. I'll try and create the code no latter then on the weekend so hopefully the new version will be sent next week. -- Best regards, _ _ .o. | Liege of Serenely Enlightened Majesty of o' \,=./ `o ..o | Computer Science, Micha? ?mina86? Nazarewicz (o o) ooo +------------------ooO--(_)--Ooo--