On 27/04/17 16:41, Michal Hocko wrote: > On Wed 26-04-17 18:29:08, Igor Stoppa wrote: > [...] >> If you prefer to have this patch only as part of the larger patchset, >> I'm also fine with it. > > I agree that the situation is not ideal. If a larger set of changes > would benefit from this change then it would clearly add arguments... Ok, then I'll send it out as part of the larger RFC set. >> Also, if you could reply to [1], that would be greatly appreciated. > > I will try to get to it but from a quick glance, yet-another-zone will > hit a lot of opposition... The most basic questions, that I hope can be answered with Yes/No =) are: - should a new zone be added after DMA32? - should I try hard to keep the mask fitting a 32bit word - at least for hose who do not use the new zone - or is it ok to just stretch it to 64 bits? If you could answer these, then I'll have a better idea of what I need to do to. TIA, igor -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@xxxxxxxxx. For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@xxxxxxxxx";> email@xxxxxxxxx </a>
