Re: [GIT PULL tip:x86/mm]

[Yinghai Lu <yinghai@kernel.org>]

On 02/24/2011 11:23 AM, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> 
> * Yinghai Lu <yinghai@kernel.org> wrote:
> 
>> On 02/24/2011 06:51 AM, Tejun Heo wrote:
>>> Ingo, please pull from the following git branch to receive four
>>> commits from Yinghai.  HEAD is d1b19426b0 (x86: Rename e820_table_* to
>>> pgt_buf_*).
>>>
>>> The first three separate nobootmem code into mm/nobootmem.c and the
>>> last one renames e820_table_* variables to pgt_buf_*.  All four
>>> patches are cleanups and shouldn't cause any behavior difference.
>>>
>>>   git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/tj/misc.git x86-mm
>>>
>>> As usual, if HEAD doesn't appear, please pull from master.
>>>
>>>   ssh://master.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/tj/misc.git x86-mm
>>>
>>> Thanks.
>>>
>>> Yinghai Lu (4):
>>>       bootmem: Separate out CONFIG_NO_BOOTMEM code into nobootmem.c
>>>       bootmem: Move contig_page_data definition to bootmem.c/nobootmem.c
>>>       bootmem: Move __alloc_memory_core_early() to nobootmem.c
>>>       x86: Rename e820_table_* to pgt_buf_*
>>>
>>>  arch/x86/include/asm/init.h |    6 +-
>>>  arch/x86/mm/init.c          |   20 +-
>>>  arch/x86/mm/init_32.c       |    8 +-
>>>  arch/x86/mm/init_64.c       |    4 +-
>>>  arch/x86/xen/mmu.c          |    2 +-
>>>  include/linux/mm.h          |    2 -
>>>  mm/Makefile                 |    8 +-
>>>  mm/bootmem.c                |  180 +-----------------
>>>  mm/nobootmem.c              |  435 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>>>  mm/page_alloc.c             |   37 ----
>>>  10 files changed, 472 insertions(+), 230 deletions(-)
>>>  create mode 100644 mm/nobootmem.c
>>>
>>
>> better to put first three into seperate branch. and it is with core code.
>> something like tip/mm
>>
>> So will not pollute tip/x86/mm. and they can be pushed separately.
> 
> Well, realistically they will be tested together and will go to Linus under the 
> x86/mm label anyway, so there's little reason to keep them separate at this point.
> 
> So i've pulled them. Thanks guys!

DavidR reported that x86/mm broke his numa emulation with 128M etc.

So wonder if that would hold you to push whole tip/x86/mm to Linus for .39
or need to rebase it while taking the tip/x86/numa-emulation-unify out.

Thanks

Yinghai