[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <0100016998a587a1-c6df93d4-223b-4e66-9d8c-2bb38fae28ac-000000@email.amazonses.com>
Date: Wed, 20 Mar 2019 01:09:38 +0000
From: Christopher Lameter <cl@...ux.com>
To: John Hubbard <jhubbard@...dia.com>
cc: john.hubbard@...il.com, Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
linux-mm@...ck.org, Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
Christian Benvenuti <benve@...co.com>,
Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>,
Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@...el.com>,
Dave Chinner <david@...morbit.com>,
Dennis Dalessandro <dennis.dalessandro@...el.com>,
Doug Ledford <dledford@...hat.com>,
Ira Weiny <ira.weiny@...el.com>, Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>,
Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@...pe.ca>,
Jerome Glisse <jglisse@...hat.com>,
Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>,
Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org>,
Mike Rapoport <rppt@...ux.ibm.com>,
Mike Marciniszyn <mike.marciniszyn@...el.com>,
Ralph Campbell <rcampbell@...dia.com>,
Tom Talpey <tom@...pey.com>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 0/1] mm: introduce put_user_page*(), placeholder
versions
On Tue, 19 Mar 2019, John Hubbard wrote:
> >
> > My concerns do not affect this patchset which just marks the get/put for
> > the pagecache. The problem was that the description was making claims that
> > were a bit misleading and seemed to prescribe a solution.
> >
> > So lets get this merged. Whatever the solution will be, we will need this
> > markup.
> >
>
> Sounds good. Do you care to promote that thought into a formal ACK for me? :)
Reviewed-by: Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux.com>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists