From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753201Ab0L3LeA (ORCPT ); Thu, 30 Dec 2010 06:34:00 -0500 Received: from mail-bw0-f46.google.com ([209.85.214.46]:33427 "EHLO mail-bw0-f46.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751933Ab0L3Ld6 (ORCPT ); Thu, 30 Dec 2010 06:33:58 -0500 DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=sender:date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references:mime-version :content-type:content-disposition:in-reply-to:user-agent; b=fk7g83GGW3b91DrotwMI7mIXQKoXt4uwEdt5AWZP7m3Is/0ThszzZLtHQ7bzwJeOAx c2qNBoubt054KfK35MS/uh6gyW2uaTH5L0i5Kw/nmBxQM9TLKMhcT5h1lZ9w2rs87bJe umDnqHJbs3k2Mcu75Wj7kJ0rrt4H3fQvYwV+w= Date: Thu, 30 Dec 2010 12:33:54 +0100 From: Tejun Heo To: "H. Peter Anvin" Cc: David Rientjes , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Ingo Molnar , tglx@linutronix.de, x86@kernel.org, eric.dumazet@gmail.com, yinghai@kernel.org, brgerst@gmail.com, gorcunov@gmail.com, Pekka Enberg , shaohui.zheng@intel.com Subject: Re: [PATCH 13/16] x86: Unify cpu/apicid <-> NUMA node mapping between 32 and 64bit Message-ID: <20101230113354.GC18831@htj.dyndns.org> References: <1293536929-31683-1-git-send-email-tj@kernel.org> <1293536929-31683-14-git-send-email-tj@kernel.org> <20101229105253.GK488@htj.dyndns.org> <4D1B8DC8.6000104@zytor.com> <4D1BB092.7030609@zytor.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <4D1BB092.7030609@zytor.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Wed, Dec 29, 2010 at 02:05:06PM -0800, H. Peter Anvin wrote: > On 12/29/2010 11:36 AM, H. Peter Anvin wrote: > > On 12/29/2010 02:52 AM, Tejun Heo wrote: > >> On Tue, Dec 28, 2010 at 12:35:45PM -0800, David Rientjes wrote: > >>> This is going to conflict with a387e95a ("") in x86/numa, so you'll need > >>> the following hunk for acpi_fake_nodes(). I'm not sure why this patchset > >>> is being based on x86/apic-cleanup rather than x86/numa? > >> > >> Because several patches from the patchset have already been committed > >> into x86/apic-cleanup. Thomas, Peter, if this needs to be rebased > >> somewhere, let me know. > >> > > > > x86/numa is already a dependent branch (on x86/amd-nb), so I'm fine > > merging x86/apic-cleanup into that branch and then if you could rebase > > it on top of the new x86/numa then I'll push it out tomorrow. > > > > OK? > > > > I have pushed out this merge onto x86/numa, so waiting for your rebase. > If you don't have time, then I'll rebase. Will rebase & repost soon. Thanks. -- tejun