On Wed, Apr 2, 2008 at 5:44 PM, Yinghai Lu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Wed, Apr 2, 2008 at 3:52 PM, Andrew Morton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > On Wed, 2 Apr 2008 15:25:48 -0700 Yinghai Lu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > [PATCH] mm: allocate usemap at first instead of mem_map in sparse_init > > > > > > on powerpc, > > > > > > On Wed, Apr 2, 2008 at 12:22 PM, Badari Pulavarty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > > > > > > > > On Wed, 2008-04-02 at 18:17 +1100, Michael Ellerman wrote: > > > > > On Wed, 2008-04-02 at 12:38 +0530, Kamalesh Babulal wrote: > > > > > > Andrew Morton wrote: > > > > > > > On Wed, 02 Apr 2008 11:55:36 +0530 Kamalesh Babulal <[EMAIL > PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > so try to allocate usemap at first altogether. > > > > I have to turn all the above crud into a proper changelog. I'd prefer > that > > you do it. > > > > Unless this patch should be folded into another one, in which case it > > doesn't matter. > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Yinghai Lu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > > > > diff --git a/mm/sparse.c b/mm/sparse.c > > > index d3cb085..782ebe5 100644 > > > --- a/mm/sparse.c > > > +++ b/mm/sparse.c > > > > We shouldn't merge this patch on its own because then that will leave a > > non-bisectable region in the powerpc history. > > > > So which patch is this patch fixing? Lexically it applies to > > mm-allocate-section_map-for-sparse_init.patch (and its updates). But is > > that where it logically lies? > > yes. we should fold > > > mm-make-mem_map-allocation-continuous.patch > > mm-allocate-section_map-for-sparse_init.patch > and this one >
please check the big one. http://lkml.org/lkml/2008/4/2/650 YH _______________________________________________ Linuxppc-dev mailing list Linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org https://ozlabs.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxppc-dev
