Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 27 Jun 2012 12:22:14 -0700 | Subject | Re: Early boot panic on machine with lots of memory | From | Yinghai Lu <> |
| |
On Wed, Jun 27, 2012 at 11:13 AM, Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org> wrote: > 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.
Good, this one should go to 3.5, right?
> > * "[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 */ > }
ok, will check it.
> > * "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?
yes.
Thanks
Yinghai -- 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/
| |