From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1750794AbWFMIvM (ORCPT ); Tue, 13 Jun 2006 04:51:12 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1750799AbWFMIvM (ORCPT ); Tue, 13 Jun 2006 04:51:12 -0400 Received: from wr-out-0506.google.com ([64.233.184.225]:20337 "EHLO wr-out-0506.google.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750794AbWFMIvL (ORCPT ); Tue, 13 Jun 2006 04:51:11 -0400 DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=beta; d=gmail.com; h=received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references; b=Q+m7W03v2Sy4HuA3icjYOlwdm8MbqTebGgVQ3g794VrLby0zW7Mm408ijCC1pbDCwwY874hPMYaRlMOOWlqn9b35NipiO89eFRTeluztaIWMjQ0vEFM3OSM8ALY/ADZX3a6GheYyzTgS23oc1aSd00YUuxxTqv7AKPH1QT4TnK0= Message-ID: Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2006 10:51:11 +0200 From: "Franck Bui-Huu" To: "Dave Hansen" Subject: Re: [SPARSEMEM] confusing uses of SPARSEM_EXTREME (try #2) Cc: apw@shadowen.org, "Linux Kernel Mailing List" In-Reply-To: <1150128603.13644.28.camel@localhost.localdomain> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline References: <448D1117.8010407@innova-card.com> <1150128603.13644.28.camel@localhost.localdomain> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Hi Dave, 2006/6/12, Dave Hansen : > On Mon, 2006-06-12 at 09:00 +0200, Franck Bui-Huu wrote: > > Is it me or the use of CONFIG_SPARSEMEM_EXTREME is really confusing in > > mm/sparce.c ? Shouldn't we use CONFIG_SPARSEMEM_STATIC instead like > > the following patch suggests ? > > I'll take positive config options over negative ones any day. I find it > easier to read things that say what they *are* rather than what they are > *not*. > > In any case, STATIC is really there as an override for architectures to > say, "I know what I am doing, I use gcc 3.4 and above, or, I don't want > to use bootmem". Extreme is really there to say, "I want two-level > lookups because my memory is extremely sparse." > > Make sense? yes and that's what the patch is trying to show...please take a look to it and show me what part of the code, used by SPARSEMEM_STATIC config, is dealing with the two-level lookups. thanks -- Franck