linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v3] MIPS: replace add_memory

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20201014220740.GA5587@alpha.franken.de>
Date:   Thu, 15 Oct 2020 00:07:40 +0200
From:   Thomas Bogendoerfer <tsbogend@...ha.franken.de>
To:     "Maciej W. Rozycki" <macro@...ux-mips.org>
Cc:     Hauke Mehrtens <hauke@...ke-m.de>,
        Rafał Miłecki <zajec5@...il.com>,
        Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@...il.com>,
        bcm-kernel-feedback-list@...adcom.com,
        Jiaxun Yang <jiaxun.yang@...goat.com>,
        Keguang Zhang <keguang.zhang@...il.com>,
        John Crispin <john@...ozen.org>, linux-mips@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3] MIPS: replace add_memory_region with memblock

On Wed, Oct 14, 2020 at 01:47:06PM +0100, Maciej W. Rozycki wrote:
> On Fri, 9 Oct 2020, Thomas Bogendoerfer wrote:
> 
> > add_memory_region was the old interface for registering memory and
> > was already changed to used memblock internaly. Replace it by
> > directly calling memblock functions.
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Thomas Bogendoerfer <tsbogend@...ha.franken.de>
> 
>  For the DEC part:
> 
> Acked-by: Maciej W. Rozycki <macro@...ux-mips.org>
> 
> NB this does not apply cleanly to upstream master, but I was able to 
> verify this regardless as the DEC part does.  For future reference: what 
> tree do you usually use that you post patches against?

mips-next branch in 

git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/mips/linux.git

Thomas.

-- 
Crap can work. Given enough thrust pigs will fly, but it's not necessarily a
good idea.                                                [ RFC1925, 2.3 ]