Nick Piggin wrote: > On Wed, Aug 20, 2008 at 11:50:09AM -0500, Christoph Lameter wrote: >> Nick Piggin wrote: >> >>> Indeed that would be a good use for it if this general fallback mechanism >>> were to be merged. >> Want me to rebase my virtualizable compound patchset on top of your vmap changes? > > Is there much clash between them? Or just the fact that you'll have to > use vm_map_ram/vm_unmap_ram? There is not much of a clash. If you would make vmap/unmap atomic then there is barely any overlap at all and the patchset becomes much smaller and even the initial version of it can support in interrupt alloc / free. > I probably wouldn't be able to find time to look at that patchset again > for a while... but anyway, I've been running the vmap rewrite for quite > a while on several different systems and workloads without problems, so > it should be stable enough to test out. And the APIs should not change. Yes I think this is good stuff. Hopefully I will get enough time to check it out in detail. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-arch" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
