On 04/15/2013 12:56 PM, Paul Mackerras wrote: > On Sat, Apr 13, 2013 at 11:36:20PM +0800, Jiang Liu wrote: >> Commit 600cc5b7f6 "mm: Kill NO_BOOTMEM version free_all_bootmem_node()" >> has kill free_all_bootmem_node() for NO_BOOTMEM. >> >> Currently the usage pattern for free_all_bootmem_node() is like: >> for_each_online_pgdat(pgdat) >> free_all_bootmem_node(pgdat); >> >> It's equivalent to free_all_bootmem(), so this patchset goes one >> step further to kill free_all_bootmem_node() for BOOTMEM too. >> >> This patchset also tries to clean up code and comments related to >> VALID_PAGE() because it has been removed from kernel long time ago. >> >> Patch 1-11: >> Kill free_all_bootmem_node() >> Patch 12-16: >> Clean up code and comments related to VALID_PAGE() >> Patch 17: >> Fix a minor build warning for m68k >> Patch 18: >> merge Alpha's mem_init() for UMA and NUMA. >> Patch 19: >> call register_page_bootmem_info_node() from mm core > > How does this not break bisection? Will a kernel still boot with > patches 1-11 applied but not patch 19? As far as I can see such a > kernel would have no memory available to it after mem_init() time > and would therefore crash early in boot. Hi Paul, Thanks for review! Patch 1-11 replace free_all_bootmem_node() with free_all_bootmem(), so all normal pages will be freed into the buddy system as before. And patch 1-11 are independent with patch 19. Gerry > > Paul. > -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@xxxxxxxxx. For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@xxxxxxxxx";> email@xxxxxxxxx </a>