>>>>> On Wed, 26 Jan 2005 11:23:06 -0800, "Luck, Tony" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>> It seems logical to me that MCA data be close to the node/cpu
>> using it, but workable if it is not.
Tony> Since performance is not an issue here, and there isn't a
Tony> functionality reason for allocating per-node, I'd vote for
Tony> whatever is the cleanest code implementation. Part of the pit
Tony> I've dug myself into is caused by the complexity of the
Tony> contig/discontig code ... if we can make it simpler, perhaps I
Tony> won't break it all again.
I'm all for simplification, but with a better API, we could share code
and still have node-local data (which does feel intuitively right).
Can't we have a simple
alloc_bootmem_for_cpu(cpu, size, align, goal)
which would take care of the difference?
(Yes, I know about alloc_bootmem_node(), but it wants a pgdat pointer,
which I couldn't care less about in the non-NUMA case.)
--david
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-ia64" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
