| To: | vagabon.xyz@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Re: [PATCH] do not count pages in holes with sparsemem |
| From: | Atsushi Nemoto <anemo@mba.ocn.ne.jp> |
| Date: | Fri, 28 Jul 2006 21:48:29 +0900 (JST) |
| Cc: | linux-mips@linux-mips.org, ralf@linux-mips.org |
| In-reply-to: | <44C880A9.1070402@innova-card.com> |
| Original-recipient: | rfc822;linux-mips@linux-mips.org |
| References: | <44C77D49.90205@innova-card.com> <20060727.002153.41632148.anemo@mba.ocn.ne.jp> <44C880A9.1070402@innova-card.com> |
| Sender: | linux-mips-bounce@linux-mips.org |
On Thu, 27 Jul 2006 11:00:25 +0200, Franck Bui-Huu <vagabon.xyz@gmail.com> wrote: > I'm suprised that sparsemem code doens't check for holes inside > sections. I would feel really more confortable to use sparsemem if a > check like the following patch exists. We could safely use pfn_valid() > in _any_ cases and if holes exist inside sections then the user have > to fix up its section sizes. > > what do you think ? I think holes inside a section is not illegal, just a bit ineffective. So I feel your patch is too strict. --- Atsushi Nemoto |
| <Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread> |
|---|---|---|
| ||
| Previous by Date: | Re: [PATCH] dump_stack() based on prologue code analysis, Franck Bui-Huu |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | Re: [PATCH] dump_stack() based on prologue code analysis, Atsushi Nemoto |
| Previous by Thread: | Re: [PATCH] do not count pages in holes with sparsemem, Franck Bui-Huu |
| Next by Thread: | [PATCH] Improve interrupt latency again for sb1250/bcm1480, Thiemo Seufer |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |