From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Date: Wed, 20 Aug 2008 18:59:47 +0200 From: Nick Piggin Subject: Re: [patch] mm: rewrite vmap layer Message-ID: <20080820165947.GA19656@wotan.suse.de> References: <20080818133224.GA5258@wotan.suse.de> <48AADBDC.2000608@linux-foundation.org> <20080820090234.GA7018@wotan.suse.de> <48AC244F.1030104@linux-foundation.org> <20080820162235.GA26894@wotan.suse.de> <48AC4B41.8080908@linux-foundation.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <48AC4B41.8080908@linux-foundation.org> Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Return-Path: To: Christoph Lameter Cc: Andrew Morton , Linux Memory Management List , linux-arch@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Wed, Aug 20, 2008 at 11:50:09AM -0500, Christoph Lameter wrote: > Nick Piggin wrote: > > > Indeed that would be a good use for it if this general fallback mechanism > > were to be merged. > > Want me to rebase my virtualizable compound patchset on top of your vmap changes? Is there much clash between them? Or just the fact that you'll have to use vm_map_ram/vm_unmap_ram? I probably wouldn't be able to find time to look at that patchset again for a while... but anyway, I've been running the vmap rewrite for quite a while on several different systems and workloads without problems, so it should be stable enough to test out. And the APIs should not change. -- 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: email@kvack.org