Re: [PATCH 5/6] Have ia64 use add_active_range() and free_area_init_nodes

[Nick Piggin]

KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki wrote:

> Andy's page_zone(page) == page_zone(buddy) check is good, I think.
>
> Making alignment is a difficult problem, I think. It complecates many things.
> We can avoid above check only when memory layout is ideal.
>
> BTW, How about following patch ?
> I don't want to  say "Oh, you have to re-compile your kernel with 
> CONFIG_UNALIGNED_ZONE on your new machine. you are unlucky." to users.

No, this is a function of the architecture code, not the specific
machine it is running on.

So if the architecture ensures alignment and no holes, then they don't
need the overhead of CONFIG_UNALIGNED_ZONE or CONFIG_HOLES_IN_ZONE.

If they do not ensure correct alignment, then they must enable
CONFIG_UNALIGNED_ZONE, even if there may be actual systems which do
result in aligned zones.
--

Send instant messages to your online friends http://au.messenger.yahoo.com 
-
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/