From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail138.messagelabs.com (mail138.messagelabs.com [216.82.249.35]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id DCAEC6B0047 for ; Sat, 6 Mar 2010 19:22:59 -0500 (EST) Date: Sat, 6 Mar 2010 16:22:34 -0800 From: Andrew Morton Subject: Re: please don't apply : bootmem: avoid DMA32 zone by default Message-Id: <20100306162234.e2cc84fb.akpm@linux-foundation.org> In-Reply-To: <4B91EBC6.6080509@kernel.org> References: <49b004811003041321g2567bac8yb73235be32a27e7c@mail.gmail.com> <20100305032106.GA12065@cmpxchg.org> <49b004811003042117n720f356h7e10997a1a783475@mail.gmail.com> <4B915074.4020704@kernel.org> <4B916BD6.8010701@kernel.org> <4B91EBC6.6080509@kernel.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org To: Yinghai Lu Cc: Greg Thelen , "H. Peter Anvin" , Thomas Gleixner , Ingo Molnar , Johannes Weiner , linux-mm@kvack.org, "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" List-ID: On Fri, 05 Mar 2010 21:44:38 -0800 Yinghai Lu wrote: > On 03/05/2010 12:38 PM, Yinghai Lu wrote: > > if you don't want to drop > > | bootmem: avoid DMA32 zone by default > > > > today mainline tree actually DO NOT need that patch according to print out ... > > > > please apply this one too. > > > > [PATCH] x86/bootmem: introduce bootmem_default_goal > > > > don't punish the 64bit systems with less 4G RAM. > > they should use _pa(MAX_DMA_ADDRESS) at first pass instead of failback... > > andrew, > > please drop Johannes' patch : bootmem: avoid DMA32 zone by default I'd rather not. That patch is said to fix a runtime problem which is present in 2.6.33 and hence we planned on backporting it into 2.6.33.x. I don't have a clue what your patches do. Can you tell us? Earlier, Johannes wrote : Humm, now that is a bit disappointing. Because it means we will never : get rid of bootmem as long as it works for the other architectures. : And your changeset just added ~900 lines of code, some of it being a : rather ugly compatibility layer in bootmem that I hoped could go away : again sooner than later. : : I do not know what the upsides for x86 are from no longer using bootmem : but it would suck from a code maintainance point of view to get stuck : half way through this transition and have now TWO implementations of : the bootmem interface we would like to get rid of. Which is a pretty good-sounding argument. Perhaps we should be dropping your patches. What patches _are_ these x86 bootmem changes, anyway? Please identify them so people can take a look and see what they do. -- 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