From: Benjamin Herrenschmidt on
On Mon, 2010-08-02 at 20:13 -0700, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
> I still think that the memblock approach of having a separate data
> structure for all of memory and one for various used blocks is flawed,
> and that it would be a lot better to have a single data structure with
> attributes. It would definitely make allocation saner. Given that,
> there is a strong reason to keep as little of the guts exposed as
> possible.

I agree, and in fact, turning the current implementation into a single
list with attributes wouldn't necessarily be that hard as a first step.

Ben.


--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo(a)vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
From: Ingo Molnar on

* Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh(a)kernel.crashing.org> wrote:

> > Please, no, don't break the memblock code now. I'm not reworking the
> > ARM implementation just as the merge window has opened - especially
> > as the ARM implementation has now been pulled into other people's
> > trees.
> >
> > If there's changes to memblock which haven't been in linux-next (which,
> > as this is a new failure, that is most definitely the case), then they
> > shouldn't be going into this merge window.
>
> I'm happy to wait and sit on the memblock churn until after ARM's in.
>
> I can then fixup my patches.

Ok, i've zapped it all from -tip.

Thanks,

Ingo
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo(a)vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/