Messages in this thread | | | From | Johannes Weiner <> | Subject | Re: [patch 2/2] bootmem: Node-setup agnostic free_bootmem() | Date | Tue, 15 Apr 2008 21:51:17 +0200 |
| |
Hi,
"Yinghai Lu" <yhlu.kernel@gmail.com> writes:
> On Tue, Apr 15, 2008 at 4:53 AM, Johannes Weiner <hannes@saeurebad.de> wrote: >> >> Andi Kleen <andi@firstfloor.org> writes: >> >> > Andrew Morton wrote: >> >> On Sun, 13 Apr 2008 18:56:57 +0200 Andi Kleen <andi@firstfloor.org> wrote: >> >> >> >>> Johannes Weiner <hannes@saeurebad.de> writes: >> >>> >> >>>> Make free_bootmem() look up the node holding the specified address >> >>>> range which lets it work transparently on single-node and multi-node >> >>>> configurations. >> >>> Acked-by: Andi Kleen <andi@firstfloor.org> >> >>> >> >>> This is far better than the original change it replaces and which >> >>> I also objected to in review. >> >>> >> >> >> >> So... do we think these two patches are sufficiently safe and important for >> >> 2.6.25? >> > >> > It's only strictly needed for .26 I think for some (also slightly >> > dubious) changes queued in git-x86. >> >> Does anything yet rely on this new free_bootmem() behaviour? If not, >> the safest thing would be to just revert the original patch in mainline >> and drop the second patch completely. > > 1. free_bootmem(ramdisk_image, ramdisk_size) in setup_arch of x86_64 > need that > 2. another patch in x86.git need that.
Ok, to avoid confusion: we are talking about free_bootmem() iterating over nodes and looking up an area WITHIN a node or free_bootmem() freeing an area ACROSS nodes?
The first is what my patch does _only_.
Hannes
| |