On Thu, Mar 31, 2016 at 01:27:34PM +1100, Gavin Shan wrote: > >So the issue is only existing when CONFIG_NO_BOOTMEM=n. The alternative fix > >would > >be similar to what we have on !CONFIG_NO_BOOTMEM: In early stage, all page > >structs > >for bootmem reserved pages are initialized and mark them with PG_reserved. > >I'm > >not sure it's worthy to fix it as we won't support bootmem as Michael > >mentioned. > > > > Mel, could you please confirm if we need a fix on !CONFIG_NO_BOOTMEM? If we > need, > I'll respin and send a patch for review. >
Given that CONFIG_NO_BOOTMEM is not supported and bootmem is meant to be slowly retiring, I would suggest instead making deferred memory init depend on NO_BOOTMEM. -- Mel Gorman SUSE Labs _______________________________________________ Linuxppc-dev mailing list Linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org https://lists.ozlabs.org/listinfo/linuxppc-dev
