From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S933080AbWFWMRv (ORCPT ); Fri, 23 Jun 2006 08:17:51 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S933086AbWFWMRv (ORCPT ); Fri, 23 Jun 2006 08:17:51 -0400 Received: from nf-out-0910.google.com ([64.233.182.189]:59922 "EHLO nf-out-0910.google.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S933080AbWFWMRv (ORCPT ); Fri, 23 Jun 2006 08:17:51 -0400 DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=beta; d=gmail.com; h=received:message-id:date:reply-to:user-agent:mime-version:to:cc:subject:references:in-reply-to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:from; b=PIrz0l09xI3blkkTYrdRVlgPoNgDgQp8ivAOCOp++soXxFdJJgHwg2XEh/XJdOhRKt06MQ6bhvyB0xU0Yfd6GJqTZn5FEibioy3DC+xsBrFFlXIDWW/WZXLAU6PG6nKswFpcPHboZLYbEkpxqFENKT6MtHg3g4SOaCCVAdevaQ4= Message-ID: <449BDCF5.6040808@innova-card.com> Date: Fri, 23 Jun 2006 14:22:13 +0200 Reply-To: franck.bui-huu@innova-card.com User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5.0.2 (X11/20060501) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Mel Gorman CC: Franck Bui-Huu , Andrew Morton , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: 2.6.17-mm1 References: <20060621034857.35cfe36f.akpm@osdl.org> <449AB01A.5000608@innova-card.com> <449ABC3E.5070609@innova-card.com> <20060623102037.GA1973@skynet.ie> In-Reply-To: <20060623102037.GA1973@skynet.ie> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-15 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: Franck Bui-Huu Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Mel Gorman wrote: > On (22/06/06 19:25), Franck Bui-Huu didst pronounce: >>>> >>> I know, but what I'm getting at is that ARCH_PFN_OFFSET may be unnecessary >>> with flatmem-relax-requirement-for-memory-to-start-at-pfn-0.patch applied. >> yes it seems so. But ARCH_PFN_OFFSET has been used before your patch >> has been sent. So your patch seems to be incomplete... > > Difficult to argue with that logic. > sorry, I was just meaning that ARCH_PFN_OFFSET had been introduced to solve this before your patch has been sent. So the requirement for memory to start at pfn 0 is already solved. Your patch solves the problem in a different way, but it's incompatible with the current one (ARCH_PFN_OFFSET). IMHO the question is now, which method is the best one ? If it's yours the we probably need to get ride of the previous method and add yours (but don't forget to modify arch such ARM which are currently using ARCH_PFN_OFFSET). Franck