From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from psmtp.com (na3sys010amx152.postini.com [74.125.245.152]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 75B716B0032 for ; Thu, 22 Aug 2013 15:46:03 -0400 (EDT) Received: by mail-qe0-f46.google.com with SMTP id f6so1375716qej.19 for ; Thu, 22 Aug 2013 12:46:02 -0700 (PDT) Date: Thu, 22 Aug 2013 15:45:55 -0400 From: Tejun Heo Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/8] x86, acpi: Move acpi_initrd_override() earlier. Message-ID: <20130822194555.GC3490@mtj.dyndns.org> References: <20130821153639.GA17432@htj.dyndns.org> <1377113503.10300.492.camel@misato.fc.hp.com> <20130821195410.GA2436@htj.dyndns.org> <1377116968.10300.514.camel@misato.fc.hp.com> <20130821204041.GC2436@htj.dyndns.org> <1377124595.10300.594.camel@misato.fc.hp.com> <20130822033234.GA2413@htj.dyndns.org> <1377186729.10300.643.camel@misato.fc.hp.com> <20130822183130.GA3490@mtj.dyndns.org> <52166909.6080104@gmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <52166909.6080104@gmail.com> Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org List-ID: To: Zhang Yanfei Cc: Toshi Kani , Tang Chen , konrad.wilk@oracle.com, robert.moore@intel.com, lv.zheng@intel.com, rjw@sisk.pl, lenb@kernel.org, tglx@linutronix.de, mingo@elte.hu, hpa@zytor.com, akpm@linux-foundation.org, trenn@suse.de, yinghai@kernel.org, jiang.liu@huawei.com, wency@cn.fujitsu.com, laijs@cn.fujitsu.com, isimatu.yasuaki@jp.fujitsu.com, izumi.taku@jp.fujitsu.com, mgorman@suse.de, minchan@kernel.org, mina86@mina86.com, gong.chen@linux.intel.com, vasilis.liaskovitis@profitbricks.com, lwoodman@redhat.com, riel@redhat.com, jweiner@redhat.com, prarit@redhat.com, zhangyanfei@cn.fujitsu.com, yanghy@cn.fujitsu.com, x86@kernel.org, linux-doc@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org Hello, On Fri, Aug 23, 2013 at 03:39:53AM +0800, Zhang Yanfei wrote: > What do you mean by "earlyboot"? And also in your previous mail, I am also > a little confused by what you said "the very first stage of boot". Does > this mean the stage we are in head_32 or head64.c? Mostly referring to the state where we don't have basic environment set up yet including page tables. > If so, could we just do something just as Yinghai did before, that is, Split > acpi_override into 2 parts: find and copy. And in "earlyboot", we just do > the find, and I think that is less of risk. Or we can just do ACPI override > earlier in setup_arch(), not pulling this process that early during boot? But *WHY*? It doesn't really buy us anything substantial. What are you trying to achieve here? "Making ACPI info available early" can't be a goal in itself and the two benefits cited in this thread seem pretty dubious to me. Why are you guys trying to push this convolution when it doesn't bring any substantial gain? Thanks. -- tejun -- 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