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 PHC | |
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
| ||
|
Date: Wed, 25 Jun 2014 14:33:56 +0200 From: Marek Szyprowski <m.szyprowski@...sung.com> To: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>, Joonsoo Kim <iamjoonsoo.kim@....com> Cc: "Aneesh Kumar K.V" <aneesh.kumar@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>, Michal Nazarewicz <mina86@...a86.com>, Minchan Kim <minchan@...nel.org>, Russell King - ARM Linux <linux@....linux.org.uk>, Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>, Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>, Gleb Natapov <gleb@...nel.org>, Alexander Graf <agraf@...e.de>, Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@...nel.crashing.org>, Paul Mackerras <paulus@...ba.org>, linux-mm@...ck.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, kvm@...r.kernel.org, kvm-ppc@...r.kernel.org, linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org, Zhang Yanfei <zhangyanfei@...fujitsu.com> Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 -next 0/9] CMA: generalize CMA reserved area management code Hello, On 2014-06-18 22:51, Andrew Morton wrote: > On Tue, 17 Jun 2014 10:25:07 +0900 Joonsoo Kim <iamjoonsoo.kim@....com> wrote: >>>> v2: >>>> - Although this patchset looks very different with v1, the end result, >>>> that is, mm/cma.c is same with v1's one. So I carry Ack to patch 6-7. >>>> >>>> This patchset is based on linux-next 20140610. >>> Thanks for taking care of this. I will test it with my setup and if >>> everything goes well, I will take it to my -next tree. If any branch >>> is required for anyone to continue his works on top of those patches, >>> let me know, I will also prepare it. >> Hello, >> >> I'm glad to hear that. :) >> But, there is one concern. As you already know, I am preparing further >> patches (Aggressively allocate the pages on CMA reserved memory). It >> may be highly related to MM branch and also slightly depends on this CMA >> changes. In this case, what is the best strategy to merge this >> patchset? IMHO, Anrew's tree is more appropriate branch. If there is >> no issue in this case, I am willing to develope further patches based >> on your tree. > That's probably easier. Marek, I'll merge these into -mm (and hence > -next and git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/mhocko/mm.git) > and shall hold them pending you review/ack/test/etc, OK? Ok. I've tested them and they work fine. I'm sorry that you had to wait for me for a few days. You can now add: Acked-and-tested-by: Marek Szyprowski <m.szyprowski@...sung.com> I've also rebased my pending patches onto this set (I will send them soon). The question is now if you want to keep the discussed patches in your -mm tree, or should I take them to my -next branch. If you like to keep them, I assume you will also take the patches which depends on the discussed changes. Best regards -- Marek Szyprowski, PhD Samsung R&D Institute Poland -- 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