On Tue, 2014-01-07 at 15:11 -0800, H. Peter Anvin wrote: > On 01/06/2014 06:35 PM, Mark Salter wrote: > > > > There is one difference from the existing x86 implementation which > > should be noted. The generic early_memremap() function does not return > > an __iomem pointer and a new early_memunmap() function has been added > > to act as a wrapper for early_iounmap() but with a non __iomem pointer > > passed in. This is in line with the first patch of this series: > > > > This makes a lot of sense. However, I would suggest that we preface the > patch series with a single patch changing the signature for the existing > x86 function, that way this change becomes bisectable. Ok, that sounds like a good idea. I'm uncertain how best to coordinate with Dave Young's patch series to avoid conflicts. His first patch does the signature change (and adds the early_memunmap function but that isn't used anywhere): https://lkml.org/lkml/2013/12/20/143 Any thoughts on how best to avoid potential merge conflicts here? -- 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>