Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1754786Ab0HCEdO (ORCPT ); Tue, 3 Aug 2010 00:33:14 -0400 Received: from gate.crashing.org ([63.228.1.57]:32990 "EHLO gate.crashing.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750873Ab0HCEdN (ORCPT ); Tue, 3 Aug 2010 00:33:13 -0400 Subject: Re: linux-next: build failure after merge of the final tree (tip tree related) From: Benjamin Herrenschmidt To: "H. Peter Anvin" Cc: Russell King , Stephen Rothwell , LKML , linux-next@vger.kernel.org, Thomas Gleixner , Ingo Molnar , Peter Zijlstra , Yinghai Lu In-Reply-To: <4C57895C.1070402@zytor.com> References: <20100803022310.bec3ba79.sfr@canb.auug.org.au> <20100802162810.GB4755@flint.arm.linux.org.uk> <1280799724.1902.84.camel@pasglop> <4C57895C.1070402@zytor.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Date: Tue, 03 Aug 2010 14:32:35 +1000 Message-ID: <1280809955.1902.85.camel@pasglop> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.28.3 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 821 Lines: 19 On Mon, 2010-08-02 at 20:13 -0700, H. Peter Anvin wrote: > I still think that the memblock approach of having a separate data > structure for all of memory and one for various used blocks is flawed, > and that it would be a lot better to have a single data structure with > attributes. It would definitely make allocation saner. Given that, > there is a strong reason to keep as little of the guts exposed as > possible. I agree, and in fact, turning the current implementation into a single list with attributes wouldn't necessarily be that hard as a first step. Ben. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/