Re: [PATCH 5/5] SRAT cleanup: make calculations and indenting level more sane

[James Cleverdon <jamesclv@us.ibm.com>]

No, I don't think we could rely on that.  Our BIOS did ascending 
addresses, but I don't recall that being spelled out in the ACPI spec.

Of course, there's a new ACPI spec out.  Maybe it makes it a 
requirement.  I'd take a look, but I can't afford the loss of sanity 
caused by gazing on the dread visage of ACPI 3.0.   ;^)


On Thursday 24 February 2005 11:54 am, Dave Hansen wrote:
> On Thu, 2005-02-24 at 11:30 -0800, keith wrote:
> > Why not take it one step further??  Something like the attached
> > patch. There is no reason to loop over the nodes as the srat
> > entries contain node info and we can use the the new
> > node_has_online_mem.
>
> You took away my function :)
>
> Seriously, though, that does look better.  Although, I still wouldn't
> mind seeing it kept broken out in another function like my patch.
>
> > This booted ok on my hot-add enabled 8-way.
> >  I am not %100 sure it is ok to make the assumption that the memory
> > is always reported linearly but that is the assumption of the
> > previous code so it must be for all know examples.
>
> Hey James, didn't we decide at some point that the SRAT could only
> have chunks with ascending addresses?
>
> -- Dave

-- 
James Cleverdon
IBM LTC (xSeries Linux Solutions)
{jamesclv(Unix, preferred), cleverdj(Notes)} at us dot ibm dot comm
--
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/ .
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"aart@kvack.org"> aart@kvack.org </a>