Messages in this thread | | | Date | Thu, 24 Feb 2011 20:32:11 +0100 | From | Ingo Molnar <> | Subject | Re: [GIT PULL tip:x86/mm] |
| |
* Yinghai Lu <yinghai@kernel.org> wrote:
> On 02/24/2011 11:23 AM, Ingo Molnar wrote: > > > > * Yinghai Lu <yinghai@kernel.org> wrote: > > > >> On 02/24/2011 06:51 AM, Tejun Heo wrote: > >>> Ingo, please pull from the following git branch to receive four > >>> commits from Yinghai. HEAD is d1b19426b0 (x86: Rename e820_table_* to > >>> pgt_buf_*). > >>> > >>> The first three separate nobootmem code into mm/nobootmem.c and the > >>> last one renames e820_table_* variables to pgt_buf_*. All four > >>> patches are cleanups and shouldn't cause any behavior difference. > >>> > >>> git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/tj/misc.git x86-mm > >>> > >>> As usual, if HEAD doesn't appear, please pull from master. > >>> > >>> ssh://master.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/tj/misc.git x86-mm > >>> > >>> Thanks. > >>> > >>> Yinghai Lu (4): > >>> bootmem: Separate out CONFIG_NO_BOOTMEM code into nobootmem.c > >>> bootmem: Move contig_page_data definition to bootmem.c/nobootmem.c > >>> bootmem: Move __alloc_memory_core_early() to nobootmem.c > >>> x86: Rename e820_table_* to pgt_buf_* > >>> > >>> arch/x86/include/asm/init.h | 6 +- > >>> arch/x86/mm/init.c | 20 +- > >>> arch/x86/mm/init_32.c | 8 +- > >>> arch/x86/mm/init_64.c | 4 +- > >>> arch/x86/xen/mmu.c | 2 +- > >>> include/linux/mm.h | 2 - > >>> mm/Makefile | 8 +- > >>> mm/bootmem.c | 180 +----------------- > >>> mm/nobootmem.c | 435 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > >>> mm/page_alloc.c | 37 ---- > >>> 10 files changed, 472 insertions(+), 230 deletions(-) > >>> create mode 100644 mm/nobootmem.c > >>> > >> > >> better to put first three into seperate branch. and it is with core code. > >> something like tip/mm > >> > >> So will not pollute tip/x86/mm. and they can be pushed separately. > > > > Well, realistically they will be tested together and will go to Linus under the > > x86/mm label anyway, so there's little reason to keep them separate at this point. > > > > So i've pulled them. Thanks guys! > > DavidR reported that x86/mm broke his numa emulation with 128M etc.
That regression needs to be fixed. Tejun, do you know about that bug?
Thanks,
Ingo
| |