From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1757199AbYDOHES (ORCPT ); Tue, 15 Apr 2008 03:04:18 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1753098AbYDOHEH (ORCPT ); Tue, 15 Apr 2008 03:04:07 -0400 Received: from py-out-1112.google.com ([64.233.166.183]:4554 "EHLO py-out-1112.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753049AbYDOHEF (ORCPT ); Tue, 15 Apr 2008 03:04:05 -0400 DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=message-id:date:from:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references; b=B3SlIXf+RXgubjLQ2GFU+yOQuurpkculB4hb+MVjBhE/t8QXa7APi7Q9nuhyEqqu1EAbCGNpAUOnXfg7y+I1KEXwXu67Ch+KHc0LcXMDCki5ZOG2RpTJtMp/la43ZxLIe1Snp34kiaV9eSagfIVilkbvV0B1puv1j/GFUSDn8tA= Message-ID: <86802c440804150004w1c94b2dci520e0ffb8b60632f@mail.gmail.com> Date: Tue, 15 Apr 2008 00:04:03 -0700 From: "Yinghai Lu" To: "Andrew Morton" Subject: Re: [patch 2/2] bootmem: Node-setup agnostic free_bootmem() Cc: "Andi Kleen" , "Johannes Weiner" , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, "Ingo Molnar" , "Yasunori Goto" , "KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki" , "Christoph Lameter" In-Reply-To: <20080414232308.ffa4e269.akpm@linux-foundation.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline References: <20080412223319.372887160@symbol.fehenstaub.lan> <20080412225850.704752615@symbol.fehenstaub.lan> <87lk3hwv52.fsf@basil.nowhere.org> <20080414232308.ffa4e269.akpm@linux-foundation.org> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Mon, Apr 14, 2008 at 11:23 PM, Andrew Morton wrote: > > On Sun, 13 Apr 2008 18:56:57 +0200 Andi Kleen wrote: > > > Johannes Weiner writes: > > > > > Make free_bootmem() look up the node holding the specified address > > > range which lets it work transparently on single-node and multi-node > > > configurations. > > > > Acked-by: Andi Kleen > > > > This is far better than the original change it replaces and which > > I also objected to in review. > > > > So... do we think these two patches are sufficiently safe and important for > 2.6.25? the patch is wrong YH