Re: [GIT PULL tip:x86/mm]

[Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>]

* 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