Messages in this thread | | | From | Johannes Weiner <> | Subject | Re: [git pull] "big box" x86 changes, bootmem/sparsemem | Date | Mon, 28 Apr 2008 18:58:14 +0200 |
| |
Hi,
"Yinghai Lu" <yhlu.kernel@gmail.com> writes:
> On Sun, Apr 27, 2008 at 3:48 PM, Johannes Weiner <hannes@saeurebad.de> wrote: >> Hi Ingo, >> >> >> Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu> writes: >> >> > * Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org> 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. > > this thread is for reserve_bootmem ?
Sorry, my mistake. I was referring to
5a982cbc7b3fe6cf72266f319286f29963c71b9e: mm: fix boundary checking in free_bootmem_core
Hannes
| |