From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mx1.suse.de (ns.suse.de [195.135.220.2]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client CN "mx1.suse.de", Issuer "CAcert Class 3 Root" (verified OK)) by ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 18084DDE47 for ; Wed, 6 Feb 2008 00:25:33 +1100 (EST) Date: Tue, 5 Feb 2008 14:25:27 +0100 From: Bernhard Walle To: Andrew Morton Subject: Re: 2.6.24-mm1: ppc32: too few arguments to function 'reserve_bootmem' Message-ID: <20080205132526.GC31523@suse.de> References: <20080203171634.58ab668b.akpm@linux-foundation.org> <200802042129.03065.m.kozlowski@tuxland.pl> <20080204144036.cf22a402.akpm@linux-foundation.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii In-Reply-To: <20080204144036.cf22a402.akpm@linux-foundation.org> Cc: linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org, Mariusz Kozlowski , paulus@samba.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org List-Id: Linux on PowerPC Developers Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , * Andrew Morton [2008-02-04 23:40]: > We did this wrong. We should have introduced a new reserve_bootmem_foo() > and migrated over to that in stages. Once all callers are migrated, remove > the old interface. Well, my original proposal was to add a new function but then someone complained that we already have too much bootmem functions. I don't remember if this was on LKML or internally in Bugzilla. However, sorry, it was my fault of course. Bernhard