Hello Mike,
I haven't read your patch text yet. I am waiting for the subsystem maintainers response at least
about the necessity to have this type of changes being merged into the sources (I mean
memblock/no-bootmem alteration). If they find it pointless (although I would strongly disagree), then
nothing to discuss. Otherwise we can come up with a solution.
-Sergey
On Thu, Aug 2, 2018 at 2:56 PM Mike Rapoport <rppt@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Hi,
On Thu, Jul 26, 2018 at 10:55:53PM +0300, Fancer's opinion wrote:
> Hello, folks
> Regarding the no_bootmem patchset I've sent earlier.
> I'm terribly sorry about huge delay with response. I got sucked in a new
> project, so just didn't have a time to proceed with the series, answer to the
> questions and resend the set.
> If it is still relevant and needed for community, I can get back to the series
> on the next week, answer to the Mett's questions (sorry, man, for doing it so
> long), rebase it on top of the kernel 4.18 and resend the new version. We also
> can try to combine it with this patch, if it is found convenient.
So, what would be the best way to move forward?
> Regards,
> -Sergey
>
>
> On Thu, 26 Jul 2018, 20:20 Paul Burton, <paul.burton@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> Hi Mike,
>
> On Thu, Jul 26, 2018 at 10:03:56AM +0300, Mike Rapoport wrote:
> > Any comments on this?
>
> I haven't looked at this in detail yet, but there was a much larger
> series submitted to accomplish this not too long ago, which needed
> another revision:
>
> https://patchwork.linux-mips.org/project/linux-mips/list/?series=787&
> state=*
>
> Given that, I'd be (pleasantly) surprised if this one smaller patch is
> enough.
>
> Thanks,
> Paul
>
--
Sincerely yours,
Mike.
