lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2011]   [Feb]   [24]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [GIT PULL tip:x86/mm]

* Yinghai Lu <yinghai@kernel.org> wrote:

> 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.

That regression needs to be fixed. Tejun, do you know about that bug?

Thanks,

Ingo


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2011-02-24 20:35    [W:0.129 / U:0.056 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site