From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Date: Fri, 16 Nov 2001 15:26:01 +0000 From: Matthew Wilcox Subject: Re: [parisc-linux] Re: parisc scatterlist doesn't want page/offset Message-ID: <20011116152601.K25491@parcelfarce.linux.theplanet.co.uk> References: <200111160730.AAA18774@puffin.external.hp.com> <20011116.065243.134136673.davem@redhat.com> <20011116150454.J25491@parcelfarce.linux.theplanet.co.uk> <20011116.071751.12999342.davem@redhat.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20011116.071751.12999342.davem@redhat.com>; from davem@redhat.com on Fri, Nov 16, 2001 at 07:17:51AM -0800 Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Return-Path: To: "David S. Miller" Cc: willy@debian.org, grundler@puffin.external.hp.com, linux-mm@kvack.org, parisc-linux@lists.parisc-linux.org List-ID: On Fri, Nov 16, 2001 at 07:17:51AM -0800, David S. Miller wrote: > From: Matthew Wilcox > Date: Fri, 16 Nov 2001 15:04:54 +0000 > > On Fri, Nov 16, 2001 at 06:52:43AM -0800, David S. Miller wrote: > > > > No, you must have page+offset because in the future the > > "address" field of scatterlist is going to disappear > > and _ONLY_ page+offset will be used. > > but _WHY_ in 2.4? this is ridiculous for something which is alleged to > be a stable kernel. > > You have to add two members to a silly structure which nobody > uses right now, that is so horrible. What affect on stability > does that change have? > > This makes merging of Jen's Axboe's block highmem code back into > 2.4.x painless. That is why. so when jens' code is merged back into 2.4 we won't have to make any changes to the arch dependent code? -- Revolutions do not require corporate support. -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@kvack.org. For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/