[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20190218094948.GA5892@lst.de>
Date: Mon, 18 Feb 2019 10:49:48 +0100
From: Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>
To: Mike Rapoport <rppt@...ux.ibm.com>
Cc: Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Palmer Dabbelt <palmer@...ive.com>,
Richard Kuo <rkuo@...eaurora.org>, linux-arch@...r.kernel.org,
linux-hexagon@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-mm@...ck.org, linux-riscv@...ts.infradead.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/4] provide a generic free_initmem implementation
On Thu, Feb 14, 2019 at 08:38:55PM +0200, Mike Rapoport wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 14, 2019 at 06:04:16PM +0100, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> > This look fine to me, but I'm a little worried that as-is this will
> > just create conflicts with my series..
>
> I'll rebase on top of your patches once they are in. Or I can send both
> series as a single set.
> Preferences?
So far there wasn't really much a reason to rebase my series, hope
this gets picked up either by Andrew or Al (not sure what the right
place is). I think for now just rebase your series on top, we can
then figure out how to proceed.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists