On 03/29/2010 03:32 PM, Michael Ellerman wrote: >> >> I want to keep the affects to other lmb users to minium at first. > > That's a good plan, but I don't think this is the nicest way to do it. > Too much to be test. so better to keep less impact to current lmb users. >> and we can merge those functions later. >> >> or you insist on merging them in this patchset? > > No I don't insist. > > I _suggest_ that if we want to avoid affecting existing lmb users, then > the checking logic should go into the existing API, but be #ifdef'ed for > now - eg. CONFIG_DYNAMIC_LMB or something. That way you avoid affecting > existing users (more or less), but you don't add a new API that you then > have to remove later. > > Having said that I don't think it really does affect existing users that > much. We still have the statically defined region arrays, and they're > still the same size, so sparc and powerpc should never need to resize, > except on machines where we currently run out of space in the array > anyway. dynamic region array for lmb.memory and lmb.reserved, actually is only need when plan to use lmb to replace bootmem code. Thanks 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
