From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from smtp.osdl.org (smtp.osdl.org [65.172.181.4]) (using TLSv1 with cipher EDH-RSA-DES-CBC3-SHA (168/168 bits)) (Client CN "smtp.osdl.org", Issuer "OSDL Hostmaster" (not verified)) by ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id EE5DD679F6 for ; Sun, 21 May 2006 08:54:29 +1000 (EST) Date: Sat, 20 May 2006 15:54:01 -0700 From: Andrew Morton To: Andi Kleen 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 Cc: davej@codemonkey.org.uk, tony.luck@intel.com, linux-mm@kvack.org, mel@csn.ul.ie, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, bob.picco@hp.com, linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org List-Id: Linux on PowerPC Developers Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , 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.