Mel Gorman wrote:
> On (22/06/06 19:25), Franck Bui-Huu didst pronounce:
>>>>
>>> I know, but what I'm getting at is that ARCH_PFN_OFFSET may be unnecessary
>>> with flatmem-relax-requirement-for-memory-to-start-at-pfn-0.patch applied.
>> yes it seems so. But ARCH_PFN_OFFSET has been used before your patch
>> has been sent. So your patch seems to be incomplete...
>
> Difficult to argue with that logic.
>
sorry, I was just meaning that ARCH_PFN_OFFSET had been introduced to
solve this before your patch has been sent. So the requirement for
memory to start at pfn 0 is already solved.
Your patch solves the problem in a different way, but it's
incompatible with the current one (ARCH_PFN_OFFSET).
IMHO the question is now, which method is the best one ? If it's yours
the we probably need to get ride of the previous method and add yours
(but don't forget to modify arch such ARM which are currently using
ARCH_PFN_OFFSET).
Franck
-
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]
