| 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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <20130827093454.GJ26909@phenom.ffwll.local> Date: Tue, 27 Aug 2013 11:34:55 +0200 From: Daniel Vetter <daniel@...ll.ch> To: Jesse Barnes <jbarnes@...tuousgeek.org> Cc: intel-gfx@...ts.freedesktop.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, mingo@...e.hu, torvalds@...ux-foundation.org, tglx@...utronix.de, hpa@...or.com Subject: Re: [Intel-gfx] Updated stolen mem patches On Fri, Jul 26, 2013 at 01:32:50PM -0700, Jesse Barnes wrote: > These address the comments I've received so far, but omit the new E820 > type for this mem. > > Chris's patches could go on top if desired; they add a new type and > resource reservation function for looking up regions by name. That > allows us to remove some duplicate code in the driver for finding stolen > space. > > But I think these two are ready as-is. How should we merge them? Just > through the i915 tree since the first one touches our headers? that and > there probably won't be conflicts on the early-quirks file; that's not > touch too often... Just noticed that these patches aren't in -next yet - somehow I've thought they'd go in in through the x86 tree. Ingo et al: Should I merge these through drm-intel-next or will you pick them up? Thanks, Daniel -- Daniel Vetter Software Engineer, Intel Corporation +41 (0) 79 365 57 48 - http://blog.ffwll.ch -- 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