[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <YtdzwLXFMuv02JEA@ZenIV>
Date: Wed, 20 Jul 2022 04:17:20 +0100
From: Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>
To: Alexander Gordeev <agordeev@...ux.ibm.com>
Cc: Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>,
Alexander Egorenkov <egorenar@...ux.ibm.com>,
Heiko Carstens <hca@...ux.ibm.com>,
Baoquan He <bhe@...hat.com>, Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>,
Vasily Gorbik <gor@...ux.ibm.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-s390@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 0/4] s390/crash: support multi-segment iterators
On Tue, Jul 19, 2022 at 07:16:32AM +0200, Alexander Gordeev wrote:
> Hi Matthew et al,
>
> This series completes 5d8de293c224 ("vmcore: convert copy_oldmem_page()
> to take an iov_iter") for s390.
>
> Changes since v3:
> - concurrent access to HSA and oldmem swap buffers protected;
>
> Changes since v2:
> - Matthew Wilcox suggestion is adopted, with that...
> - copy_to_iter() is used instead of custom implementation;
>
> Changes since v1:
> - number of bytes left to copy on fail fixed;
OK... Do you prefer it to go through s390 tree? The thing is, I've
stuff in iov_iter tree that conflicts with it; I'll gladly drop that
bit (vfs.git #fixes-s390) in favour of your series (and drop s390
bits from "new iov_iter flavour - ITER_UBUF" in #work.iov_iter - they
are not needed anymore).
I can put your series into replacement of #fixes-s390, or pull it
from whatever static branch you put it into - up to you.
Preferences?
Powered by blists - more mailing lists