--Andi Kleen <[email protected]> wrote (on Monday, October 31, 2005 03:12:17 +0100):
> On Monday 31 October 2005 01:17, Bob Picco wrote:
>
>> This is a slightly modified patch I used on x86_64 for EXTREME testing. The
>> original 2.6.13-rc1-mhp1 patch didn't apply cleanly against 2.6.14. It will
>> apply with this untested patch. The patch needs to have arch_sparse_init
>> which is only active for SPARSEMEM. This patch was just for testing EXTREME
>> on x86_64 NUMA and needs review.
>>
>> I think the bootmem allocator is being used before initialized. This
>> wouldn't have happened before SPARSEMEM_EXTREME became the default.
>>
>> If you feel my analysis is correct, I'll generate a cleaner patch and
>> test on my 4 way.
>
> Ok the question is - why did nobody submit this patch in time? When
> sparse was merged I assumed folks would actually test and maintain
> it. But that doesn't seem to be the case? Somewhat surprising.
>
> I personally don't care much about sparsemem right now because it doesn't have
> any advantage and if it's unmaintained would consider to mark it
> CONFIG_BROKEN. That's simply because we can't have highly experimental
> CONFIGs in a production kernel that unsuspecting users can just set and break
> their configuration.
>
> Dave, is there someone in charge for sparsemem on x86-64?
Sparsemem is Andy's baby. He is duly cc'ed.
M.
-
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/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
