linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] 2.6.26-rc: x86: pci-dma.c: use __GFP_NO_OOM instead of __GFP

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-Id: <200806101014.25089.jbarnes@virtuousgeek.org>
Date:	Tue, 10 Jun 2008 10:14:24 -0700
From:	Jesse Barnes <jbarnes@...tuousgeek.org>
To:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
Cc:	Miquel van Smoorenburg <mikevs@...all.net>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] 2.6.26-rc: x86: pci-dma.c: use __GFP_NO_OOM instead of __GFP_NORETRY

On Tuesday, June 10, 2008 3:23 am Ingo Molnar wrote:
> * Miquel van Smoorenburg <mikevs@...all.net> wrote:
> > On Mon, 2008-06-02 at 12:15 +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > > * Miquel van Smoorenburg <mikevs@...all.net> wrote:
> > > > Okay, so how about this then ?
> > >
> > > applied to tip/pci-for-jesse for more testing. Thanks,
> >
> > I've thought about it a bit more, and I think the actual patch that
> > really does what everybody wants is this one instead:
>
> applied a delta patch version of the one below to tip/pci-for-jesse.

Speaking of that branch, how do you want to handle it?  Is it intended for my 
linux-next branch or are some of the fixes important to get upstream now?  
Which branch should I diff/log against to see the changes (last time I looked 
it appeared neither master nor tip were the correct ones...)

Thanks,
Jesse
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/