Re: [PATCH] x86: introduce bootmem_state

[H. Peter Anvin]

Jeremy Fitzhardinge wrote:
> The total number of states is always going to be subsys1 * subsys2 * 
> ..., but folding them all into one state variable only makes sense if we 
> have a well-defined set of states *and* transitions between them.  But 
> even then it implies that we have enough coupling between our subsystems 
> that we would even care what their aggregate state is, which is already 
> a bad idea.  If we keep the internal workings of our subsystems as 
> internal details, then having private state variables is the way to go.
>
> The real problem with system_state is that it has a few broadly-defined 
> values, but no real explanation of what they mean, so they end up 
> getting used in inappropriate ways (like the virt_addr_valid() thing I 
> fixed yesterday).

Obviously.

	-hpa

--
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/