From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1754726Ab1BOJnl (ORCPT ); Tue, 15 Feb 2011 04:43:41 -0500 Received: from mx2.mail.elte.hu ([157.181.151.9]:44908 "EHLO mx2.mail.elte.hu" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753787Ab1BOJnk (ORCPT ); Tue, 15 Feb 2011 04:43:40 -0500 Date: Tue, 15 Feb 2011 10:43:27 +0100 From: Ingo Molnar To: Tejun Heo Cc: Yinghai Lu , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, x86@kernel.org, brgerst@gmail.com, gorcunov@gmail.com, shaohui.zheng@intel.com, rientjes@google.com, hpa@linux.intel.com Subject: Re: [PATCH 15/26] x86-64, NUMA: Unify the rest of memblk registration Message-ID: <20110215094327.GA1387@elte.hu> References: <20110214161249.GV18742@htj.dyndns.org> <20110214162247.GX18742@htj.dyndns.org> <20110214182718.GB18742@htj.dyndns.org> <4D597D56.5060408@kernel.org> <20110214193050.GC18742@htj.dyndns.org> <4D5983EA.4020103@kernel.org> <20110215091103.GC3160@htj.dyndns.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20110215091103.GC3160@htj.dyndns.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-08-17) X-ELTE-SpamScore: -2.0 X-ELTE-SpamLevel: X-ELTE-SpamCheck: no X-ELTE-SpamVersion: ELTE 2.0 X-ELTE-SpamCheck-Details: score=-2.0 required=5.9 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=no SpamAssassin version=3.2.5 -2.0 BAYES_00 BODY: Bayesian spam probability is 0 to 1% [score: 0.0000] Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org * Tejun Heo wrote: > On Mon, Feb 14, 2011 at 11:35:06AM -0800, Yinghai Lu wrote: > > On 02/14/2011 11:30 AM, Tejun Heo wrote: > > > On Mon, Feb 14, 2011 at 11:07:02AM -0800, Yinghai Lu wrote: > > >> Never mind. will send out patch after your patches get merged into tip. > > > > > > Alright, fair enough. > > > > > >> BTW, you may need to rebase your on top of tip/master. > > > > > > Yeah, I saw a new patch going into the numa branch, but shouldn't this > > > and the next series based on x86/numa? That was how it was done with > > > the previous series. > > > > there is patch about init_memory_mapping_high() in tip/x86/bootmem. > > it will put pgtable on local nodes. > > Ingo, hpa, how do you guys want to handle this? Maybe you can cherry > pick or pull the branch into x86/numa? Would be nice to have a version against the latest tip:x86/numa tree, the current one conflicts in arch/x86/mm/numa_64.c with your tree. Also, i suspect you want to propagate Yinghai's Acked-by's into the commits? Thanks, Ingo