lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2009]   [Feb]   [24]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [tip:core/percpu] bootmem: clean up arch-specific bootmem wrapping

* Johannes Weiner <hannes@cmpxchg.org> wrote:

> On Tue, Feb 24, 2009 at 08:23:03PM +0000, Tejun Heo wrote:
> > Author: Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>
> > AuthorDate: Tue, 24 Feb 2009 11:57:20 +0900
> > Commit: Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>
> > 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@kernel.org>
> > Cc: Johannes Weiner <hannes@saeurebad.de>
>
> 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


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2009-02-24 22:53    [W:0.155 / U:0.104 seconds]
©2003-2011 Jasper Spaans. Advertise on this site