[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <92ce901d-42dc-6872-1ff0-0ca13d5cefbe@arm.com>
Date: Thu, 13 Jun 2019 11:07:30 +0530
From: Anshuman Khandual <anshuman.khandual@....com>
To: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com>
Cc: linux-mm@...ck.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, catalin.marinas@....com,
will.deacon@....com, ard.biesheuvel@....com, osalvador@...e.de,
mhocko@...e.com, mark.rutland@....com
Subject: Re: [PATCH V5 - Rebased] mm/hotplug: Reorder memblock_[free|remove]()
calls in try_remove_memory()
On 06/13/2019 07:24 AM, Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Wed, 12 Jun 2019 08:53:33 +0200 David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com> wrote:
>
>>>>> ...
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> - Rebased on linux-next (next-20190611)
>>>>
>>>> Yet the patch you've prepared is designed for 5.3. Was that
>>>> deliberate, or should we be targeting earlier kernels?
>>>
>>> It was deliberate for 5.3 as a preparation for upcoming reworked arm64 hot-remove.
>>>
>>
>> We should probably add to the patch description something like "This is
>> a preparation for arm64 memory hotremove. The described issue is not
>> relevant on other architectures."
>
> Please. And is there any reason to merge it separately? Can it be
> [patch 1/3] in the "arm64/mm: Enable memory hot remove" series?
Sure it can be. I will make this [patch 1/3] in the next version for
"arm64/mm: Enable memory hot remove". Apologies for the noise here.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists