Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 25 Apr 2012 19:15:43 -0400 (EDT) | Subject | Re: [PATCH] mm: nobootmem: Correct alloc_bootmem semantics. | From | David Miller <> |
| |
From: Yinghai Lu <yinghai@kernel.org> Date: Wed, 25 Apr 2012 16:14:00 -0700
> On Wed, Apr 25, 2012 at 4:00 PM, David Miller <davem@davemloft.net> wrote: >> From: Yinghai Lu <yinghai@kernel.org> >> Date: Wed, 25 Apr 2012 15:46:42 -0700 >> >>> On Wed, Apr 25, 2012 at 1:10 PM, David Miller <davem@davemloft.net> wrote: >>>> @@ -298,13 +298,19 @@ void * __init __alloc_bootmem_node(pg_data_t *pgdat, unsigned long size, >>>> if (WARN_ON_ONCE(slab_is_available())) >>>> return kzalloc_node(size, GFP_NOWAIT, pgdat->node_id); >>>> >>>> +again: >>>> ptr = __alloc_memory_core_early(pgdat->node_id, size, align, >>>> goal, -1ULL); >>>> if (ptr) >>>> return ptr; >>> >>> If you want to be consistent to bootmem version. >>> >>> again label should be here instead. >> >> It is merely an artifact of implementation that the bootmem version >> doesn't try to respect the given node if the goal cannot be satisfied, >> and in fact I would classify that as a bug that needs to be fixed. >> >> Therefore, I believe the bootmem case is what needs to be adjusted >> instead. > > Yes. > > Acked-by: Yinghai Lu <yinghai@kernel.org> > > Linus will pick it directly or through your sparc nobootmem conversion?
I was hoping Linus would take this directly. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |