On Tue, Feb 24, 2009 at 10:49:32PM +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote: > > * 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? No, when the patch was submitted for review, I pointed out the change in semantics and gathered from Tejun's reaction that this wasn't done intentionally. So the problem is the change itself, not the missing declaration. >From the original mail: Johannes Weiner wrote: > This won't suffice as reserve_bootmem() doesn't use > alloc_bootmem_core(), so now you effectively removed the > node-0 restriction for reserve_bootmem() on this > configuration. Ah... right. :-( I just wrote again because I didn't understand why Tejun acknowledged the error in the patch and then it went into -tip anyway. The other part of my email was just suggestions for a cleanup, I wasn't referring to that when I said 'broken' - sorry if that is how it came over. -- 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
|