>
> Thank you for your suggestions. I did change SuperH implementation so
> that it uses init_bootmem_node and free_area_init_core. Well, it
> works.
Great!
>
> But I'm not sure if it's good use or not. At least, it seems that
> free_area_init_core is not intended to be used, since it is not
> defined in header file.
I don't see problems with the init_bootmem_node() usage. The
free_area_init_core() usage is questionable. No, you should not
use free_area_init_node() as it stands currently. For several
reasons, I am thinking of defining free_area_init_node() for non
CONFIG_DISCONTIGMEM cases, you might think about it then. Note
that free_area_init_node() also invokes free_area_init_core(),
it will probably be put into a header file soon. I would suggest
stick with the call to free_area_init_core() till then, but
we do need to clean this up before 2.4.
Kanoj
>
> Things are going like this:
>
> setu_arch
> call
> init_bootmem_node
>
> paging_init
> get info. from:
> NODE_DATA(0)->bdata->node_boot_start
> NODE_DATA(0)->bdata->node_low_pfn
> then call
> free_area_init_core (Should I use free_area_init_node instead?)
>
> mem_init
> get info. from:
> NODE_DATA(0)->bdata->node_boot_start
> NODE_DATA(0)->bdata->node_low_pfn
>
> I think that it would be better if we define macros for START_PFN and
> MAX_LOW_PFN, then we could eliminate the variable max_low_pfn even
> in the i386 implementation.
> --
>
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Feb 15 2000 - 21:00:14 EST