From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Date: Mon, 14 Oct 2002 17:43:00 -0700 From: "Martin J. Bligh" Reply-To: "Martin J. Bligh" Subject: Re: [rfc][patch] Memory Binding API v0.3 2.5.41 Message-ID: <2005946728.1034617377@[10.10.2.3]> In-Reply-To: <3DAB6385.9000207@us.ibm.com> References: <3DAB6385.9000207@us.ibm.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Return-Path: To: colpatch@us.ibm.com Cc: "Eric W. Biederman" , linux-kernel , linux-mm@kvack.org, LSE , Andrew Morton , Michael Hohnbaum List-ID: >>>> 4) An ordered zone list is probably the more natural mapping. >>> >>> See my comments above about per zone/memblk. And you reemphasize my point, how do we order the zone lists in such a way that a user of the API can easily know/find out what zone #5 is? >> Could you explain how that problem is different from finding out >> what memblk #5 is ... I don't see the difference? > Errm... __memblk_to_node(5) As opposed to creating __zone_to_node(5) ? > I"m not saying that we couldn't add a similar interface for zones... something along the lines of: > __memblk_and_zone_to_flat_zone_number(5, DMA) > or some such. It just isn't there now... Surely this would dispose of the need for memblks? If not, then I'd agree it's probably just adding more complication. M. -- 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/