> It costs 4.xx k space per CPU - perhaps a constraint for embedded? Not a major one.
> >In fact I would prefer to just eliminate CONFIG_DOUBLEFAULT (imho > >it always a bad idea because the amount of code it saves is miniscule) > > instead of adding such a ifdef maze. > > It's configurable for embedded only anyway, and I think there's some value > in allowing it to be configured off for that environment. > With less ifdefs then please. > > >> + BUG_ON(page_count(page)); > >> + init_page_count(page); > >> + free_pages(stack, j); > >> + stack += (PAGE_SIZE << j); > > > >In 2.4-aa I added a alloc_pages_exact() for this. I don't think such games > > should be played outside page_alloc.c. I would recommend to readd > > alloc_pages_exact() and then use it. > > Will need to track that patch down. http://www.kernel.org/pub/linux/kernel/people/andrea/kernels/v2.4/2.4.23aa3/00_module-gfp-7 But it'll need quite some changes for 2.6 anyways. > >> -#define DOUBLEFAULT_STACKSIZE (1024) > >> -static unsigned long doublefault_stack[DOUBLEFAULT_STACKSIZE]; > >> -#define STACK_START (unsigned > >> long)(doublefault_stack+DOUBLEFAULT_STACKSIZE) +extern unsigned long > >> max_low_pfn; > > > >No externs in .c > > The question is - is it acceptable to declare max_low_pfn in any header? Sure, why not? -Andi - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
