On Wed, 25 Jun 2014 14:33:56 +0200 Marek Szyprowski
wrote:
> > That's probably easier. Marek, I'll merge these into -mm (and hence
> > -next and git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/mhocko/mm.git)
> > and shall hold them pending you review/ack/test/etc, OK?
>
> Ok. I've tested them
Hello,
On 2014-06-18 22:51, Andrew Morton wrote:
On Tue, 17 Jun 2014 10:25:07 +0900 Joonsoo Kim wrote:
v2:
- Although this patchset looks very different with v1, the end result,
that is, mm/cma.c is same with v1's one. So I carry Ack to patch 6-7.
This patchset is based on linux-next
Hello,
On 2014-06-18 22:51, Andrew Morton wrote:
On Tue, 17 Jun 2014 10:25:07 +0900 Joonsoo Kim iamjoonsoo@lge.com wrote:
v2:
- Although this patchset looks very different with v1, the end result,
that is, mm/cma.c is same with v1's one. So I carry Ack to patch 6-7.
This patchset is
On Wed, 25 Jun 2014 14:33:56 +0200 Marek Szyprowski m.szyprow...@samsung.com
wrote:
That's probably easier. Marek, I'll merge these into -mm (and hence
-next and git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/mhocko/mm.git)
and shall hold them pending you review/ack/test/etc, OK?
Ok.
On Wed, Jun 18, 2014 at 01:51:44PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Tue, 17 Jun 2014 10:25:07 +0900 Joonsoo Kim wrote:
>
> > > >v2:
> > > > - Although this patchset looks very different with v1, the end result,
> > > > that is, mm/cma.c is same with v1's one. So I carry Ack to patch 6-7.
> >
On Wed, Jun 18, 2014 at 01:51:44PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
On Tue, 17 Jun 2014 10:25:07 +0900 Joonsoo Kim iamjoonsoo@lge.com wrote:
v2:
- Although this patchset looks very different with v1, the end result,
that is, mm/cma.c is same with v1's one. So I carry Ack to patch
On Tue, 17 Jun 2014 10:25:07 +0900 Joonsoo Kim wrote:
> > >v2:
> > > - Although this patchset looks very different with v1, the end result,
> > > that is, mm/cma.c is same with v1's one. So I carry Ack to patch 6-7.
> > >
> > >This patchset is based on linux-next 20140610.
> >
> > Thanks
On Tue, 17 Jun 2014 10:25:07 +0900 Joonsoo Kim iamjoonsoo@lge.com wrote:
v2:
- Although this patchset looks very different with v1, the end result,
that is, mm/cma.c is same with v1's one. So I carry Ack to patch 6-7.
This patchset is based on linux-next 20140610.
Thanks
On Mon, Jun 16, 2014 at 11:11:35AM +0200, Marek Szyprowski wrote:
> Hello,
>
> On 2014-06-16 07:40, Joonsoo Kim wrote:
> >Currently, there are two users on CMA functionality, one is the DMA
> >subsystem and the other is the KVM on powerpc. They have their own code
> >to manage CMA reserved area
Hello,
On 2014-06-16 07:40, Joonsoo Kim wrote:
Currently, there are two users on CMA functionality, one is the DMA
subsystem and the other is the KVM on powerpc. They have their own code
to manage CMA reserved area even if they looks really similar.
>From my guess, it is caused by some needs on
Hello,
On 2014-06-16 07:40, Joonsoo Kim wrote:
Currently, there are two users on CMA functionality, one is the DMA
subsystem and the other is the KVM on powerpc. They have their own code
to manage CMA reserved area even if they looks really similar.
From my guess, it is caused by some needs on
On Mon, Jun 16, 2014 at 11:11:35AM +0200, Marek Szyprowski wrote:
Hello,
On 2014-06-16 07:40, Joonsoo Kim wrote:
Currently, there are two users on CMA functionality, one is the DMA
subsystem and the other is the KVM on powerpc. They have their own code
to manage CMA reserved area even if
Currently, there are two users on CMA functionality, one is the DMA
subsystem and the other is the KVM on powerpc. They have their own code
to manage CMA reserved area even if they looks really similar.
>From my guess, it is caused by some needs on bitmap management. Kvm side
wants to maintain
Currently, there are two users on CMA functionality, one is the DMA
subsystem and the other is the KVM on powerpc. They have their own code
to manage CMA reserved area even if they looks really similar.
From my guess, it is caused by some needs on bitmap management. Kvm side
wants to maintain
14 matches
Mail list logo
