From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Date: Sat, 20 May 2006 15:54:01 -0700 From: Andrew Morton Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/6] Have x86_64 use add_active_range() and free_area_init_nodes Message-Id: <20060520155401.3048be0d.akpm@osdl.org> In-Reply-To: <200605210017.59984.ak@suse.de> References: <20060508141030.26912.93090.sendpatchset@skynet> <200605202327.19606.ak@suse.de> <20060520144043.22f993b1.akpm@osdl.org> <200605210017.59984.ak@suse.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Return-Path: To: Andi Kleen Cc: mel@csn.ul.ie, davej@codemonkey.org.uk, tony.luck@intel.com, bob.picco@hp.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org, linux-mm@kvack.org List-ID: Andi Kleen wrote: > > > > Well, it creates arch-neutral common code, teaches various architectures > > use it. It's the sort of thing we do all the time. > > > > These things are opportunities to eliminate crufty arch code which few > > people understand and replace them with new, clean common code which lots > > of people understand. That's not a bad thing to be doing. > > I'm not fundamentally against that, but so far it seems to just generate lots of > new bugs? I'm not sure it's really worth the pain. > It is a bit disproportionate. But in some ways that's a commentary on the current code. All this numa/sparse/flat/discontig/holes-in-zones/ virt-memmap/ stuff is pretty hairy, especially in its initalisation. I'm willing to go through the pain if it ends up with something cleaner which more people understand a little bit. -- 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/ . Don't email: email@kvack.org