* Johannes Weiner <hannes@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Tue, Feb 24, 2009 at 08:23:03PM +0000, Tejun Heo wrote: > > Author: Tejun Heo <tj@xxxxxxxxxx> > > AuthorDate: Tue, 24 Feb 2009 11:57:20 +0900 > > Commit: Tejun Heo <tj@xxxxxxxxxx> > > CommitDate: Tue, 24 Feb 2009 11:57:20 +0900 > > > > bootmem: clean up arch-specific bootmem wrapping > > > > Impact: cleaner and consistent bootmem wrapping > > > > By setting CONFIG_HAVE_ARCH_BOOTMEM_NODE, archs can define > > arch-specific wrappers for bootmem allocation. However, this is done > > a bit strangely in that only the high level convenience macros can be > > changed while lower level, but still exported, interface functions > > can't be wrapped. This not only is messy but also leads to strange > > situation where alloc_bootmem() does what the arch wants it to do but > > the equivalent __alloc_bootmem() call doesn't although they should be > > able to be used interchangeably. > > > > This patch updates bootmem such that archs can override / wrap the > > backend function - alloc_bootmem_core() instead of the highlevel > > interface functions to allow simpler and consistent wrapping. Also, > > HAVE_ARCH_BOOTMEM_NODE is renamed to HAVE_ARCH_BOOTMEM. > > > > Signed-off-by: Tejun Heo <tj@xxxxxxxxxx> > > Cc: Johannes Weiner <hannes@xxxxxxxxxxxx> > > What does this message mean? That the patch was commited to > the -tip tree? yes. > Well, why not... oh, right, it is broken ;-) In your reply you pointed out a change that was not adequately declared plus an opportunity for a cleanup - is that what you mean by breakage? Ingo -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-tip-commits" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
|