From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Message-ID: <3DAB669B.3000801@us.ibm.com> Date: Mon, 14 Oct 2002 17:51:39 -0700 From: Matthew Dobson Reply-To: colpatch@us.ibm.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: [rfc][patch] Memory Binding API v0.3 2.5.41 References: <3DAB6385.9000207@us.ibm.com> <2005946728.1034617377@[10.10.2.3]> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Return-Path: To: "Martin J. Bligh" Cc: "Eric W. Biederman" , linux-kernel , linux-mm@kvack.org, LSE , Andrew Morton , Michael Hohnbaum List-ID: Martin J. Bligh wrote: >>>>>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. Well, since each node's memory (or memblk in the parlance of my head ;) has several 'zones' in it (DMA, HIGHMEM, etc), this conversion function will need 2 parameters. It may well be called __node_and_zone_type_to_flat_zone_number(node, DMA|NORMAL|HIGHMEM). Or, we could have: __zone_to_node(5) = node # and __zone_to_zone_type(5) = DMA|NORMAL|HIGHMEM. But either way, we would need to specify both pieces. Cheers! -Matt -- 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/