On 11.10.24 12:17, Michael Ellerman wrote:
"Ritesh Harjani (IBM)" <ritesh.list@xxxxxxxxx> writes:
Please find the v2 of cma related powerpc fadump fixes.
Patch-1 is a change in mm/cma.c to make sure we return an error if someone uses
cma_init_reserved_mem() before the pageblock_order is initalized.
I guess, it's best if Patch-1 goes via mm tree and since rest of the changes
are powerpc fadump fixes hence those should go via powerpc tree. Right?
Yes I think that will work.
Because there's no actual dependency on patch 1, correct?
Let's see if the mm folks are happy with the approach, and if so you
should send patch 1 on its own, and patches 2-4 as a separate series.
Makes sense to me.
--
Cheers,
David / dhildenb
