From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Message-ID: <417EA06B.5040609@kolumbus.fi> Date: Tue, 26 Oct 2004 22:07:23 +0300 From: =?ISO-8859-15?Q?Mika_Penttil=E4?= MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: [Lhms-devel] Re: 150 nonlinear References: <1098815779.4861.26.camel@localhost> In-Reply-To: <1098815779.4861.26.camel@localhost> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Return-Path: To: Dave Hansen Cc: Andy Whitcroft , lhms , linux-mm List-ID: Dave Hansen wrote: >Hi Andy, > >I've been thinking about how we're going to merge up the code that uses >Dave M's nonlinear with your new implementation. > >There are two problems that are being solved: having a sparse layout >requiring splitting up mem_map (solved by discontigmem and your >nonlinear), and supporting non-linear phys to virt relationships (Dave >M's implentation which does the mem_map split as well). > >I think both Dave M. and I agree that your implementation is the way to >go, mostly because it properly starts the separation of these two >distinct problems. > >So, I propose the following: your code should be referred to as >something like CONFIG_SPARSEMEM. The code supporting non-linear p::v >retains the CONFIG_NONLINEAR name. > >Do you think your code is in a place where it's ready for wider testing >on a few more architectures? In which case, would you like it held in >the -mhp tree while it's waiting to get merged? > >-- Dave > > > What do you consider as Dave M's nonlinear? --Mika -- 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: aart@kvack.org