Re: [git pull] "big box" x86 changes, bootmem/sparsemem

[Johannes Weiner <hannes@saeurebad.de>]

Hi,

"Yinghai Lu" <yhlu.kernel@gmail.com> writes:

> On Sun, Apr 27, 2008 at 3:48 PM, Johannes Weiner <hannes@saeurebad.de> wrote:
>> Hi Ingo,
>>
>>
>>  Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu> writes:
>>
>>  > * Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org> wrote:
>>  >
>>  >> IOW, they'd be big enough that people hopefully don't start nitpicking
>>  >> about some *totally* uninteresting small detail, but small enough that
>>  >> people can read it through without losing concentration about a
>>  >> quarter of the way in.
>>  >
>>  > ok. Here's the "memory management" type of changes:
>>  >
>>  >    git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/x86/linux-2.6-x86-bigbox-bootmem.git for-linus
>>  >
>>  > the other sub-trees will depend on these changes. I think these
>>  > infrastructure and other improvements are mergable and pullable as-is.
>>  >
>>  >       Ingo
>>  >
>>  > ------------------>
>>
>>  [...]
>>
>>
>>  >       mm: allow reserve_bootmem() cross nodes
>>
>>  I find it sad that this goes in now.  I wrote a clean version of
>>  reserve_bootmem() [1] and it was rejected with arguments that I did not
>>  understand [2] and that were not further explained even though I asked
>>  for it [3].
>>
>>  http://lkml.org/lkml/2008/4/16/76
>>  http://lkml.org/lkml/2008/4/16/234
>>  http://lkml.org/lkml/2008/4/16/250
>>
>>  Your comment was rather unfair, because it gave the impression you did
>>  not read the thread before replying.  And you did not react to other
>>  explicit questions from me.  If you find my patches to be crap, say so
>>  and please explain WHY so I have a chance to improve.
>
> this thread is for reserve_bootmem ?

Sorry, my mistake.  I was referring to

5a982cbc7b3fe6cf72266f319286f29963c71b9e: mm: fix boundary checking in
free_bootmem_core

	Hannes