* Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Mon, 2010-03-22 at 14:05 +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote: > > * Paul Mackerras <paulus@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > And I don't see the point of moving the x86 e820 stuff into the kernel > > > directory. [...] > > > > I dont see the point of that either - that is a mistake. e820 is an x86 bios > > call and we shouldnt name a generic mechanism after that. e820 is absolutely > > messy and has no place anywhere beyond x86. > > > > The main technical argument i see is 'early_res versus LMB'. Even there i'd > > prefer LMB from a technical quality POV. > > Then we have no argument. The point is, we object to that fw_memmap/e820 > stuff taking over for non-x86 architectures. We aren't saying that x86 > -must- move to LMB, but if the wish is to have a common implementation in > generic code accross all archs, -then- we object to it being e820. Ok, just in case i wasnt clear enough in my first reply (and i guess your mail means i wasnt): that whole-sale move of e820 into kernel/fw_memmap.c is a total non-starter as far as i'm concerned. And i kind of like the 'logical memory block' name - it is more intuitive than 'early_res' (which was always a misnomer IMO, just couldnt find a better name for it and it stuck with us). So no arguments from me at all about the code quality aspects - i just wanted to highlight the huge amount of non-trivial work Yinghai has invested into this already, with little external help, and that if possible it would be nice to minimize the upsetting of related x86 code if possible. Please help him out with more specific suggestions about how the two memory allocation spaces could be unified best, to serve the needs of all these architectures - if you have some spare time. Thanks, Ingo -- 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
