[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20121120115222.9b674d86.akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Date: Tue, 20 Nov 2012 11:52:22 -0800
From: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
To: Marek Szyprowski <m.szyprowski@...sung.com>
Cc: Jason Cooper <jason@...edaemon.net>,
KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com>,
Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.cz>, Mel Gorman <mgorman@...e.de>,
Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>,
linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
linaro-mm-sig@...ts.linaro.org, linux-mm@...ck.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Thomas Petazzoni <thomas.petazzoni@...e-electrons.com>,
Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
Kyungmin Park <kyungmin.park@...sung.com>,
Soren Moch <smoch@....de>,
Sebastian Hesselbarth <sebastian.hesselbarth@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm: dmapool: use provided gfp flags for all
dma_alloc_coherent() calls
On Tue, 20 Nov 2012 11:48:44 +0100
Marek Szyprowski <m.szyprowski@...sung.com> wrote:
> > As this patch is already in -next and is stuck there for two more
> > weeks I can't (or at least won't) merge this patch, so I can't help
> > with any of the above.
>
> I will fix both issues in the next version of the patch. Would like to
> merge it to your tree or should I keep it in my dma-mapping tree?
The patch looks OK to me now (still wondering about the -stable
question though).
It would be a bit of a pain for me to carry a patch which conflicts
with one in linux-next, and this patch doesn't appear to conflict with
the other pending dmapool.c patches in -mm so you may as well keep it
in the dma-mapping tree now.
--
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