On Wed, Dec 16, 2015 at 04:01:43PM +1100, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> Hi Andrew,
>
> Today's linux-next merge of the akpm-current tree got a conflict in:
>
> include/linux/memblock.h
>
> between commit:
>
> bf3d3cc580f9 ("mm/memblock: add MEMBLOCK_NOMAP attribute to memblock memory table")
>
> from the arm64 tree and commit:
>
> f7e2bc7d46e9 ("mm/memblock.c: memblock_is_memory()/reserved() can be boolean")
>
> from the akpm-current tree.
>
> I fixed it up (see below) and can carry the fix as necessary (no action
> is required).
>
> --
> Cheers,
> Stephen Rothwell sfr@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
> diff --cc include/linux/memblock.h
> index fec66f86eeff,359871f2fedd..000000000000
> --- a/include/linux/memblock.h
> +++ b/include/linux/memblock.h
> @@@ -325,10 -318,9 +325,10 @@@ phys_addr_t memblock_mem_size(unsigned
> phys_addr_t memblock_start_of_DRAM(void);
> phys_addr_t memblock_end_of_DRAM(void);
> void memblock_enforce_memory_limit(phys_addr_t memory_limit);
> - int memblock_is_memory(phys_addr_t addr);
> + bool memblock_is_memory(phys_addr_t addr);
> +int memblock_is_map_memory(phys_addr_t addr);
> int memblock_is_region_memory(phys_addr_t base, phys_addr_t size);
> - int memblock_is_reserved(phys_addr_t addr);
> + bool memblock_is_reserved(phys_addr_t addr);
> bool memblock_is_region_reserved(phys_addr_t base, phys_addr_t size);
Thanks, Steven. I guess we should apply similar int->bool treatment to
memblock_is_map_memory and memblock_is_region_memory, but it's all
cosmetic really.
Will
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-next" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
