[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4BF190B4.70705@zytor.com>
Date: Mon, 17 May 2010 11:53:40 -0700
From: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
To: Yinghai <yinghai.lu@...cle.com>
CC: Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@...nel.crashing.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-arch@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 15/35] x86, lmb: Add lmb_reserve_area_overlap_ok()
On 05/17/2010 10:18 AM, Yinghai wrote:
>>
>> No. Both will hit 2.6.36. It's way too late to queue up such changes for
>> the 2.6.35 merge window which has already opened.
>
> i have feeling that your new LMB code will hit 2.6.36. and
> x86 patches that is using to lmb will hit 2.6.37.
>
> otherwise it will make more merge conflicts between tip and lmb.
> unless put your lmb change to tip?
>
We can arrange for some way of dealing with this problem... this is not
an issue.
>> Why would it be "too long" ? I keep asking what the heck is going on
>> with having a time bomb on those patches and yet have to get a
>> satisfactory answer.
>
> why are you thinking that there is time bomb in the patches?
You're the one that keeps saying "that is too long", but without
motivating the hurry.
-hpa
--
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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists