* Yinghai Lu <yinghai@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > 2) > > > > I think we also need to concentrate the changes back into LMB: > > yes. put them in kernel/early_res.c and move them to lmb.c if lmb gugs are > happy with the change. Yes, they seemed OK with changing it to accomodate x86, as long as current behavior stays compatible and as long as the changes are squeaky-clean. Both of which are highly reasonable expectations ;-) > > early_res.h will go away as well and all the new APIs will be in lmb.h. > > current have three levels > a. old lmb users > b. x86 with bootmem > c. x86 with no-bootmem > > some functions later could be moved to new bootmem.c I think we want to work towards the end result where we dont have bootmem.c anymore. I.e. a modern LMB architecture should generally not make use of bootmem at all. We could do that switch on x86 straight away, and make CONFIG_NO_BOOTMEM a default-y option, hm? We could also hide the interactivity behind CONFIG_DEBUG_VM or so - and eliminate it altogether later on. We should also switch around the flag and turn it into CONFIG_BOOTMEM. Hm? 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
