[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <c5dc0415-8c2d-8c9c-5bdc-824c267aa960@intel.com>
Date: Thu, 21 Jul 2022 10:07:51 -0700
From: Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...el.com>
To: "Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill.shutemov@...ux.intel.com>,
Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>,
Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>,
Alexander Potapenko <glider@...gle.com>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
the arch/x86 maintainers <x86@...nel.org>,
Kostya Serebryany <kcc@...gle.com>,
Andrey Ryabinin <ryabinin.a.a@...il.com>,
Andrey Konovalov <andreyknvl@...il.com>,
Taras Madan <tarasmadan@...gle.com>,
Dmitry Vyukov <dvyukov@...gle.com>,
"H . J . Lu" <hjl.tools@...il.com>,
Andi Kleen <ak@...ux.intel.com>,
Rick Edgecombe <rick.p.edgecombe@...el.com>,
Linux Memory Management List <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCHv5 00/13] Linear Address Masking enabling
On 7/19/22 17:59, Kirill A. Shutemov wrote:
> Dave, Andy, any position on this?
>
> I wrote LAM_U48 support to prove that interface is flexible enough, but I
> see why it can be a problem if a distro will pick them up ahead of
> upstream.
My position is that maintaining distro forks is troublesome. If you
held a gun to my head today and made me merge *something* I'd leave out
the U48 patch, but reserve the right to add it later.
I'm not sure whether that makes the distros lives easier or harder. I'm
not promising anything either way, though.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists