From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Dave Hansen Subject: Re: mmotm 2011-06-15-16-56 uploaded (mm/page_cgroup.c) Date: Thu, 16 Jun 2011 11:46:04 -0700 Message-ID: <1308249964.11430.157.camel@nimitz> References: <201106160034.p5G0Y4dr028904@imap1.linux-foundation.org> <20110615214917.a7dce8e6.randy.dunlap@oracle.com> <20110616172819.1e2d325c.kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com> <20110616103559.GA5244@suse.de> <1308241542.11430.119.camel@nimitz> <20110616165146.GB5244@suse.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki , Randy Dunlap , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, akpm@linux-foundation.org, linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org To: Mel Gorman Return-path: In-Reply-To: <20110616165146.GB5244@suse.de> Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org List-Id: linux-fsdevel.vger.kernel.org On Thu, 2011-06-16 at 17:51 +0100, Mel Gorman wrote: > No, why was node_start_pfn() and node_end_pfn() defined optionally > on a per-architecture basis? Probably because it started in the NUMA-Q port, and we were still trying to stay off the radar at that point. It looks like it showed up in ~2.5.[3-4]?. We didn't know what the heck we were doing back then, and it probably leaked out from under CONFIG_NUMA/DISCONTIGMEM at some point. Seems like a good thing to consolidate to me. Especially since it's just a shortcut to the (unconditionally defined) structure member, I can't see a real justification for needing different definitions. -- Dave -- 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/ . Fight unfair telecom internet charges in Canada: sign http://stopthemeter.ca/ Don't email: email@kvack.org