Re: [QN/PATCH] Why do some archs allocate stack via kmalloc, others via get_free_pages?

2005-07-22 Thread Nigel Cunningham
Hi. On Fri, 2005-07-22 at 17:50, David S. Miller wrote: > From: Nigel Cunningham <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Date: Fri, 22 Jul 2005 14:11:17 +1000 > > > In making some modifications to Suspend, we've discovered that some > > arches use kmalloc and others use get_free_pages to allocate the stack. > > Is

Re: [QN/PATCH] Why do some archs allocate stack via kmalloc, others via get_free_pages?

2005-07-22 Thread David S. Miller
From: Nigel Cunningham <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: Fri, 22 Jul 2005 14:11:17 +1000 > In making some modifications to Suspend, we've discovered that some > arches use kmalloc and others use get_free_pages to allocate the stack. > Is there a reason for the variation? If not, could the following patch

[QN/PATCH] Why do some archs allocate stack via kmalloc, others via get_free_pages?

2005-07-21 Thread Nigel Cunningham
Hi all. In making some modifications to Suspend, we've discovered that some arches use kmalloc and others use get_free_pages to allocate the stack. Is there a reason for the variation? If not, could the following patch be considered for inclusion (tested on x86 only). Regards, Nigel arch/frv/k