On Tue, 2 Oct 2007 09:01:10 +0200 Andi Kleen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > These are fine to me, but should not all go through my tree > > > because most changes are in other architectures. > > > > I assume you're referring to just > > convert-cpu_sibling_map-to-be-a-per-cpu-variable* here. > > All the *-to-*per-cpu* patches from Mike yes OK, I'll merge those directly. > > > > > I have nothing pending currently. I rejected > > > also quite a few of these. > > > > You did? I'd have dropped them if you had. > > > > Oh well, I was planning on a maintainer patch-bombing tomorrow - let's go > > through them again. > > I'll send you a detailed list after the patch bomb. Thanks > > > > > > Hmm, need to recheck the x86_64 bits I think. > > > > Thanks. > > Done now (adding ccs) > > x86_64-sparsemem_vmemmap-2m-page-size-support.patch > x86_64-sparsemem_vmemmap-vmemmap-x86_64-convert-to-new-helper-based-initialisation.patch > > Look like these two should be merged together Shall do. > Also I'm concerned about a third variant of memmappery. Can we agree > to only merge that when the old sparsemem support is removed from x86-64? How much work would that be? > Otherwise it looks good to me. > > > How come? Memoryless node can and do occur in real-world machines. Kernel > > should support that? > > But a node is just defined by its memory? Don't think so. A node is a lump of circuitry which can have zero or more CPUs, IO and memory. It may initially have been conceived as a memory-only concept in the Linux kernel, but that doesn't fully map onto reality (does it?) There was a real-world need for this, I think from the Fujitsu guys. That should be spelled out in the changelog but isn't. > > If so, that might be OK - the app just needs a reliable way of working out > > whether it's on a 32- or 64-bit kernel? > > That would be ugly and a little error prone (would this case really be > tested in user space normally?) but might work. I guess it wouldn't be too hard for a 64-bit kernel to fake up 32-bit data for 32-bit userspace. For each architecture :( But let's see what Matt thinks. > > > > > > x86_64-efi-boot-support-efi-frame-buffer-driver.patch > > > > x86_64-efi-boot-support-efi-boot-document.patch > > > > > > This required changes from review I think. And the previous patch is > > > useless > > > without a boot protocol. > > > > So should I drop them? > > Yes for now please. Done. > e.g. we at least need a patch to actually check the version number > of the boot protocol. - 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/
