From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1763291AbYD0Wsc (ORCPT ); Sun, 27 Apr 2008 18:48:32 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1752087AbYD0WsY (ORCPT ); Sun, 27 Apr 2008 18:48:24 -0400 Received: from saeurebad.de ([85.214.36.134]:47708 "EHLO saeurebad.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752038AbYD0WsX (ORCPT ); Sun, 27 Apr 2008 18:48:23 -0400 From: Johannes Weiner To: Ingo Molnar Cc: Linus Torvalds , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Andrew Morton , Thomas Gleixner , "H. Peter Anvin" , Yinghai Lu , Yinghai Lu , jbarnes@virtuousgeek.org Subject: Re: [git pull] "big box" x86 changes, bootmem/sparsemem References: <20080426185516.GA32364@elte.hu> <20080426194143.GA8366@elte.hu> Date: Mon, 28 Apr 2008 00:48:17 +0200 In-Reply-To: <20080426194143.GA8366@elte.hu> (Ingo Molnar's message of "Sat, 26 Apr 2008 21:41:43 +0200") Message-ID: <87hcdmnccu.fsf@saeurebad.de> User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/23.0.60 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Bogosity: Ham, tests=bogofilter, spamicity=0.000000, version=1.1.3 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Hi Ingo, Ingo Molnar writes: > * Linus Torvalds wrote: > >> IOW, they'd be big enough that people hopefully don't start nitpicking >> about some *totally* uninteresting small detail, but small enough that >> people can read it through without losing concentration about a >> quarter of the way in. > > ok. Here's the "memory management" type of changes: > > git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/x86/linux-2.6-x86-bigbox-bootmem.git for-linus > > the other sub-trees will depend on these changes. I think these > infrastructure and other improvements are mergable and pullable as-is. > > Ingo > > ------------------> [...] > mm: allow reserve_bootmem() cross nodes I find it sad that this goes in now. I wrote a clean version of reserve_bootmem() [1] and it was rejected with arguments that I did not understand [2] and that were not further explained even though I asked for it [3]. http://lkml.org/lkml/2008/4/16/76 http://lkml.org/lkml/2008/4/16/234 http://lkml.org/lkml/2008/4/16/250 Your comment was rather unfair, because it gave the impression you did not read the thread before replying. And you did not react to other explicit questions from me. If you find my patches to be crap, say so and please explain WHY so I have a chance to improve. Please, reconsider the bootmem patches; bootmem code looks really bad at the moment. Hannes