Subject: Re: linux-next: build failure after merge of the final tree (tip tree related)

From: "H. Peter Anvin" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 02 Aug 2010 20:13:32 -0700

On 08/02/2010 06:42 PM, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
> 
> I'm happy to wait and sit on the memblock churn until after ARM's in.
> 
> I can then fixup my patches.
> 

As far as x86 is concerned, I would like to try to get the whole thing
into -tip fairly early in a kernel cycle, so that it can get -tip/-next
testing for a while before merging.

I would much rather smoke out bugs like the qla2xxx failing to implement
.shutdown and therefore doing DMA on random memory than just paper it
over by functionally re-implementing a bunch of the memblock guts in x86.

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.

	-hpa

-- 
H. Peter Anvin, Intel Open Source Technology Center
I work for Intel.  I don't speak on their behalf.