On Thu, Nov 21, 2019 at 05:02:17PM +0100, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > On Thu, Nov 21, 2019 at 03:55:39PM +0000, Robin Murphy wrote: > > Hmm, there's no functional dependency though, is there? AFAICS it's > > essentially just a context conflict. Is it worth simply dropping (or > > postponing) the local renaming in __dma_direct_optimal_gfp_mask(), or > > perhaps even cross-merging arm64/for-next/zone-dma into dma/for-next? > > I would have no problem with pulling it in. I'd kinda hate creating > the conflict, though. So if the arm64 maintainers are fine with it > I'll pull it in, especially if I get an ACK from Robin. Please go ahead and pull in our for-next/zone-dma branch if you need it. We're not going to rebase it, and I suspect we won't even be queueing anything else there at this stage in the game. Cheers, Will
