[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20190502231542.GA9336@infradead.org>
Date: Thu, 2 May 2019 16:15:42 -0700
From: Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>
To: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc: Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>,
Linux List Kernel Mailing <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Michael Ellerman <mpe@...erman.id.au>,
linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org,
Martin Schwidefsky <schwidefsky@...ibm.com>,
linux-s390 <linux-s390@...r.kernel.org>,
Hillf Danton <dhillf@...il.com>,
Paul Burton <paul.burton@...s.com>,
James Hogan <jhogan@...nel.org>, linux-mips@...r.kernel.org,
Paul Mundt <lethal@...ux-sh.org>, Stas Sergeev <stsp@...t.ru>,
Yoshinori Sato <ysato@...rs.sourceforge.jp>,
Rich Felker <dalias@...c.org>, linux-sh@...r.kernel.org,
"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
Khalid Aziz <khalid.aziz@...cle.com>,
Nitin Gupta <nitin.m.gupta@...cle.com>,
sparclinux@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Linux 5.1-rc5
On Mon, Apr 15, 2019 at 09:17:10AM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> I ruthlessly also entirely ignored MIPS, SH and sparc, since they seem
> largely irrelevant, partly since even theoretically this whole issue
> needs a _lot_ of memory.
Adding the relevant people - while the might be irrelevant, at least
mips and sparc have some giant memory systems. And I'd really like
to see the arch-specific GUP implementations to go away for other
reasons, as we have a few issues to sort out with GUP usage now
(we just had discussions at LSF/MM), and the less implementations we
have to deal with the better.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists