[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <52CB9FF8.6020809@cn.fujitsu.com>
Date: Tue, 07 Jan 2014 14:34:32 +0800
From: Tang Chen <tangchen@...fujitsu.com>
To: Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>
CC: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
linux-next@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Lans Zhang <jia.zhang@...driver.com>,
Yasuaki Ishimatsu <isimatu.yasuaki@...fujitsu.com>,
Lai Jiangshan <laijs@...fujitsu.com>,
Jiang Liu <jiang.liu@...wei.com>,
Zhang Yanfei <zhangyanfei@...fujitsu.com>
Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the akpm-current tree with the tip
tree
On 01/07/2014 02:00 PM, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> Hi Andrew,
>
> Today's linux-next merge of the akpm-current tree got a conflict in
> arch/x86/mm/numa.c between commit f3d815cb854b ("x86/mm/numa: Fix 32-bit
> kernel NUMA boot") from the tip tree and commit 1459be89954e ("x86: get
> pg_data_t's memory from other node") from the akpm-current tree.
>
> These appear to be two very similar solutions, I fixed it up (see below -
> I (arbitrarily) chose to keep the actual allocation from the tip tree, but
> the messages from the akpm-current tree) and can carry the fix as
> necessary (no action is required).
>
memblock_alloc_nid() and __memblock_alloc_base() will call
memblock_alloc_base_nid() in the end. So I think it is OK to me.
I will do some tests when they are merged.
Thanks.
--
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