linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH V5 - Rebased] mm/hotplug: Reorder memblock_[free|remove]() calls in try_remove

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-Id: <20190612185450.73841b9f5af3a4189de6f910@linux-foundation.org>
Date:   Wed, 12 Jun 2019 18:54:50 -0700
From:   Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
To:     David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com>
Cc:     Anshuman Khandual <anshuman.khandual@....com>, 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 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?