Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 24 Jun 2008 15:02:37 -0700 | From | "Yinghai Lu" <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH] x86: introduce init_memory_mapping for 32bit |
| |
On Tue, Jun 24, 2008 at 12:22 PM, Yinghai Lu <yhlu.kernel@gmail.com> wrote: > On Tue, Jun 24, 2008 at 4:30 AM, Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu> wrote: >> >> * Yinghai Lu <yhlu.kernel@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> so could use mem below max_low_pfn as early. could move several >>> function more early instead of waiting after paging_init including >>> moving relocate_initrd early, and kva related early done in >>> initmem_init >> >> applied to tip/x86/setup-memory - thanks Yinghai. >> >> a sidenote: >> >>> 6 files changed, 128 insertions(+), 74 deletions(-) >> >> this patch is too large - if it causes any problems it will not be very >> easy to figure out which exact change caused the problems. >> >> Lets hope it goes all fine - but in the future lets try doing >> more+smaller patches, especially if they change some known-dangerous >> area of the kernel. >> >> For example here a better splitup would have been to do 5 or more >> patches: >> >> 1) first introduce init_memory_mapping() [but dont use it anywhere] >> 2) add the init_memory_mapping() call to setup_arch() >> 3) move remap_numa_kva() >> 4) move relocate_initrd() >> 5) remove the now unnecessary setup from paging_init() >> >> ... or something like that. The point is to manage risk: if there's >> multiple problem areas that a change is touching, try to isolate them >> from each other and introduce the change gradually. >> >> The end result is still exactly the same, but much more >> reviewable/debuggable/bisectable. > > split into 3 patches, please use them to replace the old one if you like. > and [PATCH] x86: fix e820_update_range size when overlapping [PATCH] x86: get max_pfn_mapped in init_memory_mapping [PATCH] x86: add table_top check for alloc_low_page in 64 bit [PATCH] x86: change size if e820_update/remove_range
YH
| |