Messages in this thread |  | | | Date | Tue, 15 Apr 2008 00:15:12 -0700 | | From | Andrew Morton <> | | Subject | Re: [patch 2/2] bootmem: Node-setup agnostic free_bootmem() |
| |
On Tue, 15 Apr 2008 00:04:03 -0700 "Yinghai Lu" <yhlu.kernel@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 14, 2008 at 11:23 PM, Andrew Morton > <akpm@linux-foundation.org> wrote: > > > > On Sun, 13 Apr 2008 18:56:57 +0200 Andi Kleen <andi@firstfloor.org> wrote: > > > > > Johannes Weiner <hannes@saeurebad.de> writes: > > > > > > > Make free_bootmem() look up the node holding the specified address > > > > range which lets it work transparently on single-node and multi-node > > > > configurations. > > > > > > Acked-by: Andi Kleen <andi@firstfloor.org> > > > > > > This is far better than the original change it replaces and which > > > I also objected to in review. > > > > > > > So... do we think these two patches are sufficiently safe and important for > > 2.6.25? > > the patch is wrong >
The last I saw was this:
On Sun, 13 Apr 2008 12:57:22 +0200 Johannes Weiner <hannes@saeurebad.de> wrote:
> Hi, > > "Yinghai Lu" <yhlu.kernel@gmail.com> writes: > > > On Sat, Apr 12, 2008 at 3:33 PM, Johannes Weiner <hannes@saeurebad.de> wrote: > > ... > > > > could have chance that bootmem with reserved_early that is crossing > > the nodes. > > Upstream reserve_bootmem_core() would BUG() on a caller trying to cross > nodes, so I don't see where this chance could come from.
Is that what you're referring to?
Was Johannes observation incorrect? If so, why?
|  |