On 03/29/2010 03:10 PM, Michael Ellerman wrote: > On Mon, 2010-03-29 at 09:52 -0700, Yinghai Lu wrote: >> On 03/29/2010 05:22 AM, Michael Ellerman wrote: >>> On Sun, 2010-03-28 at 19:42 -0700, Yinghai Lu wrote: >>>> the new lmb could be used to early_res in x86. >>>> >>>> Suggested by: David, Ben, and Thomas >>>> >>>> First three patches should go into 2.6.34 >>>> >>>> -v6: change sequence as requested by Thomas >>>> -v7: seperate them to more patches >>>> -v8: add boundary checking to make sure not free partial page. >>>> -v9: use lmb_debug to control print out of reserve_lmb. >>>> add e820 clean up, and e820 become __initdata >>> >>> Bike shedding perhaps, but can you maintain the naming convention, ie. >>> lmb_xxx() rather than xxx_lmb(). Neither is necessarily better, but all >>> the existing functions use the lmb_xxx() style. >>> >> >> so you want >> >> find_lmb_area ==> lmb_find_area >> reserve_lmb ==> lmb_reserve >> free_lmb ==> lmb_free >> >> first one is ok, >> >> but next two we already have lmb_reserved and lmb_free without checking and increasing the size of region array. > > That was the point of my other mail. We now have two lmb APIs, one which > checks if the array will overflow and one which doesn't. That seems like > a bad idea. Having one called lmb_free() and one called free_lmb() is > definitely a bad idea, because it's completely non obvious which one > caters for overflow. I want to keep the affects to other lmb users to minium at first. and we can merge those functions later. or you insist on merging them in this patchset? Yinghai -- 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