[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20180726154557.7a1677d8@lwn.net>
Date: Thu, 26 Jul 2018 15:45:57 -0600
From: Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>
To: Mike Rapoport <rppt@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@...radead.org>,
linux-doc <linux-doc@...r.kernel.org>,
linux-mm <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
lkml <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 00/11] docs/mm: add boot time memory management docs
On Wed, 18 Jul 2018 20:00:43 +0300
Mike Rapoport <rppt@...ux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:
> > Michal acked #11 (the docs patch) in particular but not the series as a
> > whole. But it's the rest of the series that I was most worried about :)
> > I'm happy for the patches to take either path, but I'd really like an
> > explicit ack before I apply that many changes directly to the MM code...
>
> Andrew,
>
> Can you please take a look at this series? The thread starts at [1] and if
> it'd be more convenient to you I can respin the whole set.
It seems this hasn't happened - at least, I don't see the patches in
linux-next. Unless somebody says something I think I'll just go ahead and
merge the set. It all still applies cleanly enough, no conflicts against
-next, and I'd hate to see this work fall through the cracks.
jon
Powered by blists - more mailing lists