[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <be2a1166-9c8e-489f-8e95-b905a06fc9e5@redhat.com>
Date: Fri, 11 Oct 2024 12:25:23 +0200
From: David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com>
To: Michael Ellerman <mpe@...erman.id.au>,
"Ritesh Harjani (IBM)" <ritesh.list@...il.com>, linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org
Cc: linux-mm@...ck.org, Sourabh Jain <sourabhjain@...ux.ibm.com>,
Hari Bathini <hbathini@...ux.ibm.com>, Zi Yan <ziy@...dia.com>,
"Kirill A . Shutemov" <kirill.shutemov@...ux.intel.com>,
Mahesh J Salgaonkar <mahesh@...ux.ibm.com>,
Madhavan Srinivasan <maddy@...ux.ibm.com>,
"Aneesh Kumar K . V" <aneesh.kumar@...nel.org>,
Donet Tom <donettom@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>, LKML
<linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, Sachin P Bappalige <sachinpb@...ux.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC v2 0/4] cma: powerpc fadump fixes
On 11.10.24 12:17, Michael Ellerman wrote:
> "Ritesh Harjani (IBM)" <ritesh.list@...il.com> writes:
>> Please find the v2 of cma related powerpc fadump fixes.
>>
>> Patch-1 is a change in mm/cma.c to make sure we return an error if someone uses
>> cma_init_reserved_mem() before the pageblock_order is initalized.
>>
>> I guess, it's best if Patch-1 goes via mm tree and since rest of the changes
>> are powerpc fadump fixes hence those should go via powerpc tree. Right?
>
> Yes I think that will work.
>
> Because there's no actual dependency on patch 1, correct?
>
> Let's see if the mm folks are happy with the approach, and if so you
> should send patch 1 on its own, and patches 2-4 as a separate series.
Makes sense to me.
--
Cheers,
David / dhildenb
Powered by blists - more mailing lists