[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20170130182100.GE13332@e106622-lin>
Date: Mon, 30 Jan 2017 18:21:00 +0000
From: Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@....com>
To: Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, mark.rutland@....com,
devicetree@...r.kernel.org, lorenzo.pieralisi@....com,
vincent.guittot@...aro.org, linux-pm@...r.kernel.org,
peterz@...radead.org, broonie@...nel.org, will.deacon@....com,
gregkh@...uxfoundation.org, dietmar.eggemann@....com,
robh+dt@...nel.org, sudeep.holla@....com, linux@....linux.org.uk,
morten.rasmussen@....com, linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/7] Fix issues and factorize arm/arm64 capacity
information code
Hi Catalin,
On 30/01/17 17:51, Catalin Marinas wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 30, 2017 at 12:29:01PM +0000, Juri Lelli wrote:
> > I'd need more advice on this set, especially on how and if patch 6 could fly.
>
> Since you got some comments and said that you are going to fix them in
> the next version, I guess people are waiting for you to post a new
> series.
>
While this is true for Dietmar's and part of Russell's comments, I was
still waiting to understand where people think is better to move the
externs (as Russell pointed out), though, and if the whole idea could
fly.
I could certainly come up with a proposal on this point, but I didn't
simply want to spam people's mailboxes with a v2 (addressing relatively
minor points, IMHO) if v1 was already completely off. Apologies if that
wasn't clear from my replies.
Maybe you are saying that no comments are a good sign after all. :)
Best,
- Juri
Powered by blists - more mailing lists