From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.5 required=3.0 tests=HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_PASS,USER_AGENT_MUTT autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2C92CC43381 for ; Thu, 14 Feb 2019 18:39:30 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 03A01222D0 for ; Thu, 14 Feb 2019 18:39:30 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S2394319AbfBNSj2 (ORCPT ); Thu, 14 Feb 2019 13:39:28 -0500 Received: from mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com ([148.163.156.1]:41282 "EHLO mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S2391235AbfBNSj1 (ORCPT ); Thu, 14 Feb 2019 13:39:27 -0500 Received: from pps.filterd (m0098410.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com (8.16.0.27/8.16.0.27) with SMTP id x1EIdQeY142838 for ; Thu, 14 Feb 2019 13:39:27 -0500 Received: from e06smtp03.uk.ibm.com (e06smtp03.uk.ibm.com [195.75.94.99]) by mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com with ESMTP id 2qnbu091d5-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT) for ; Thu, 14 Feb 2019 13:39:26 -0500 Received: from localhost by e06smtp03.uk.ibm.com with IBM ESMTP SMTP Gateway: Authorized Use Only! Violators will be prosecuted for from ; Thu, 14 Feb 2019 18:39:05 -0000 Received: from b06cxnps4076.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (9.149.109.198) by e06smtp03.uk.ibm.com (192.168.101.133) with IBM ESMTP SMTP Gateway: Authorized Use Only! Violators will be prosecuted; (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256/256) Thu, 14 Feb 2019 18:39:02 -0000 Received: from b06wcsmtp001.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (b06wcsmtp001.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com [9.149.105.160]) by b06cxnps4076.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (8.14.9/8.14.9/NCO v10.0) with ESMTP id x1EId2d92163186 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=OK); Thu, 14 Feb 2019 18:39:02 GMT Received: from b06wcsmtp001.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by IMSVA (Postfix) with ESMTP id DC84BA405F; Thu, 14 Feb 2019 18:39:01 +0000 (GMT) Received: from b06wcsmtp001.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by IMSVA (Postfix) with ESMTP id ADF45A4054; Thu, 14 Feb 2019 18:38:58 +0000 (GMT) Received: from rapoport-lnx (unknown [9.148.206.8]) by b06wcsmtp001.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS; Thu, 14 Feb 2019 18:38:58 +0000 (GMT) Date: Thu, 14 Feb 2019 20:38:55 +0200 From: Mike Rapoport To: Christoph Hellwig Cc: Andrew Morton , Palmer Dabbelt , Richard Kuo , linux-arch@vger.kernel.org, linux-hexagon@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-riscv@lists.infradead.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/4] provide a generic free_initmem implementation References: <1550159977-8949-1-git-send-email-rppt@linux.ibm.com> <20190214170416.GA32441@lst.de> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20190214170416.GA32441@lst.de> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.24 (2015-08-30) X-TM-AS-GCONF: 00 x-cbid: 19021418-0012-0000-0000-000002F5CEE3 X-IBM-AV-DETECTION: SAVI=unused REMOTE=unused XFE=unused x-cbparentid: 19021418-0013-0000-0000-0000212D4D2D Message-Id: <20190214183854.GA10795@rapoport-lnx> X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=2.50.10434:,, definitions=2019-02-14_09:,, signatures=0 X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=outbound_notspam policy=outbound score=0 priorityscore=1501 malwarescore=0 suspectscore=0 phishscore=0 bulkscore=0 spamscore=0 clxscore=1015 lowpriorityscore=0 mlxscore=0 impostorscore=0 mlxlogscore=739 adultscore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=8.0.1-1810050000 definitions=main-1902140126 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Thu, Feb 14, 2019 at 06:04:16PM +0100, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > This look fine to me, but I'm a little worried that as-is this will > just create conflicts with my series.. I'll rebase on top of your patches once they are in. Or I can send both series as a single set. Preferences? -- Sincerely yours, Mike.