From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Sun, 9 Dec 2001 18:29:40 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Sun, 9 Dec 2001 18:29:30 -0500 Received: from zero.tech9.net ([209.61.188.187]:34054 "EHLO zero.tech9.net") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Sun, 9 Dec 2001 18:29:26 -0500 Subject: Re: [CFT] tree-based bootmem From: Robert Love To: William Lee Irwin III Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org In-Reply-To: <20011208154021.B939@holomorphy.com> In-Reply-To: <20011208154021.B939@holomorphy.com> Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Evolution/1.0.0.99+cvs.2001.12.06.08.57 (Preview Release) Date: 09 Dec 2001 18:29:26 -0500 Message-Id: <1007940570.1235.13.camel@phantasy> Mime-Version: 1.0 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Sat, 2001-12-08 at 18:40, William Lee Irwin III wrote: > I've waited a week or two for bug reports to roll in from early testers > (including myself), and no reports have come in. > > So now I humbly request the assistance of a larger userbase in testing > the bootmem patch. Patch successfully tested on (3) i386 machines, an SH4 machine, and a sparc32 machine. And on the low memory SH4 machine, the finer-granularity of addressing is welcome. Now, when do we see some interface changes to bootmem that take advantage of your patch? :-) Robert Love