[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20111205171209.GA627@google.com>
Date: Mon, 5 Dec 2011 09:12:09 -0800
From: Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
To: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
Cc: benh@...nel.crashing.org, yinghai@...nel.org, hpa@...or.com,
tony.luck@...el.com, ralf@...ux-mips.org, schwidefsky@...ibm.com,
liqin.chen@...plusct.com, lethal@...ux-sh.org, davem@...emloft.net,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-arch@...r.kernel.org,
mingo@...hat.com, jonas@...thpole.se, lennox.wu@...il.com,
sfr@...b.auug.org.au
Subject: Re: [PATCHSET tip:x86/memblock] memblock: Kill early_node_map[],
take 2
(cc'ing Stephen, hi!)
On Mon, Dec 05, 2011 at 05:31:48PM +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> * Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org> wrote:
>
> > Hello,
> >
> > This patchset was posted quite a while ago but got lost during the
> > korg disturbance and I forgot about it too. Thankfully, benh pinged
> > me about testing this patchset yesterday, so here's the refreshed
> > version.
>
> A bit scary - you should get it into linux-next i suspect - if
> that works out then we could then put it into tip:core/memblock
> if there are no objections from anyone.
>
> It's not really an x86 tree and most of the changes are
> affecting non-x86 architectures, right?
Hmmm... this was part of the memblock updates going through
x86/memblock and unless we're gonna setup a separate tree for memblock
(I don't think that would be necessary at this point) I think it would
be better to route this x86/memblock eventually. That said, setting
up temp linux-next branch for now sounds fine to me. hpa, what do you
think?
Thanks.
--
tejun
--
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