Re: [PATCH] no buddy bitmap patch : intro and includes [0/2]

[Hiroyuki KAMEZAWA]

Martin J. Bligh wrote:
>>>>What was the purpose behind this, again? Sorry, has been too long since
>>>>I last looked.

> > On Thu, 2004-10-07 at 08:03, Tolentino, Matthew E wrote:
> >
> > For one, it avoids the otherwise requisite resizing of the bitmaps=20
> > during memory hotplug operations...

>> Dave McCracken wrote:
> > The memory allocator bitmaps are the main remaining reason we need the
> > concept of linear memory.  If we can get rid of them, it's one step closer
> > to managing memory as a set of sections.

>>--Dave Hansen <haveblue@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote (on Thursday, October 07, 2004 08:39:38 -0700)
> > It also simplifies the nonlinear implementation.  The whole reason we
> > had the lpfn (Linear) stuff was so that the bitmaps could represent a
> > sparse physical address space in a much more linear fashion.  With no
> > bitmaps, this isn't an issue, and gets rid of a lot of code, and a
> > *huge* source of bugs where lpfns and pfns are confused for each other. 
>
>
> Makese sense on both counts. Would be nice to add the justification to 
> the changelog ;-)

It seems all I should answer is already answered.
Thank you all.

I'll add the purpose to the changelog.

Kame <kamezawa.hiroyu@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>

> M.

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/