On Tue, Feb 26, 2013 at 11:44 PM, Tang Chen <tangc...@cn.fujitsu.com> wrote:
>
> Sorry, if you want to revert, you just need to revert:
>
> commit e8d1955258091e4c92d5a975ebd7fd8a98f5d30f
> acpi, memory-hotplug: parse SRAT before memblock is ready
> commit 01a178a94e8eaec351b29ee49fbb3d1c124cb7fb
> acpi, memory-hotplug: support getting hotplug info from SRAT
>
> The other two have nothing to do with SRAT. And they are necessary.
>
> Seeing from the code, I think it is clean. But we'd better test it.
We should revert them all.
as
commit fb06bc8e5f42f38c011de0e59481f464a82380f6
Author: Tang Chen <tangc...@cn.fujitsu.com>
Date: Fri Feb 22 16:33:42 2013 -0800
page_alloc: bootmem limit with movablecore_map
It is totally misleading in the TITLE. Come on, what is movablecore_map?
It actually use movablemem_map to exclude some range during
memblock_find_in_range.
That make memblock less generic.
That patch is the base of the whole patchset.
Also you and Yasuaki keep saying: movablemem_map=srat.
But where is doc and code for it?
Looks like there is only movablemem_map=acpi.
I'm upset by this patchset.
Next time, please get Ack from TJ or Ben when you touch memblock code.
And at least make the TITLE is right.
Thanks
Yinghai
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
