On Fri, 05 Mar 2010 21:44:38 -0800 Yinghai Lu <yinghai@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On 03/05/2010 12:38 PM, Yinghai Lu wrote: > > if you don't want to drop > > | bootmem: avoid DMA32 zone by default > > > > today mainline tree actually DO NOT need that patch according to print out ... > > > > please apply this one too. > > > > [PATCH] x86/bootmem: introduce bootmem_default_goal > > > > don't punish the 64bit systems with less 4G RAM. > > they should use _pa(MAX_DMA_ADDRESS) at first pass instead of failback... > > andrew, > > please drop Johannes' patch : bootmem: avoid DMA32 zone by default I'd rather not. That patch is said to fix a runtime problem which is present in 2.6.33 and hence we planned on backporting it into 2.6.33.x. I don't have a clue what your patches do. Can you tell us? Earlier, Johannes wrote : Humm, now that is a bit disappointing. Because it means we will never : get rid of bootmem as long as it works for the other architectures. : And your changeset just added ~900 lines of code, some of it being a : rather ugly compatibility layer in bootmem that I hoped could go away : again sooner than later. : : I do not know what the upsides for x86 are from no longer using bootmem : but it would suck from a code maintainance point of view to get stuck : half way through this transition and have now TWO implementations of : the bootmem interface we would like to get rid of. Which is a pretty good-sounding argument. Perhaps we should be dropping your patches. What patches _are_ these x86 bootmem changes, anyway? Please identify them so people can take a look and see what they do. -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxx For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@xxxxxxxxx";> email@xxxxxxxxx </a>