Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 27 Jun 2012 11:13:30 -0700 | From | Tejun Heo <> | Subject | Re: Early boot panic on machine with lots of memory |
| |
Hello, Yinghai.
Sorry about the delay. I'm in bug storm somehow. :(
On Fri, Jun 22, 2012 at 07:14:43PM -0700, Yinghai Lu wrote: > On Fri, Jun 22, 2012 at 12:29 PM, Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org> wrote: > > I wish we had a single call - say, memblock_die(), or whatever - so > > that there's a clear indication that memblock usage is done, but yeah > > maybe another day. Will review the patch itself. BTW, can't you post > > patches inline anymore? Attaching is better than corrupt but is still > > a bit annoying for review. > > please check the three patches:
Heh, reviewing is cumbersome this way but here are my comments.
* "[PATCH] memblock: free allocated memblock_reserved_regions later" looks okay to me.
* "[PATCH] memblock: Free allocated memblock.memory.regions" makes me wonder whether it would be better to have something like the following instead.
typedef void memblock_free_region_fn_t(unsigned long start, unsigned size);
void memblock_free_regions(memblock_free_region_fn_t free_fn) { /* call free_fn() on reserved and memory regions arrays */ /* clear both structures so that any further usage triggers warning */ }
* "memblock: Add checking about illegal using memblock". Hmm... wouldn't it be better to be less explicit? I think it's adding too much opencoded identical checks. Maybe implement a common check & warning function?
Thanks.
-- tejun -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |