On Thursday, February 12, 2015 10:10:30 PM KY Srinivasan wrote: [cut]
> > > > > > > > > > This issue was first discovered by Andy Whitcroft: > > > > > https://lkml.org/lkml/2014/3/14/451 > > > > > I had sent patches based on Andy's analysis that did not affect > > > > > the users of the kernel hot-add memory APIs: > > > > > https://lkml.org/lkml/2014/12/2/662 > > > > > > > > > > This patch puts the burden where it needs to be and can address > > > > > the issue > > > > for all clients. > > > > > > > > That seems to mean that this series is not needed. Is that correct? > > > > > > This patch was never committed upstream and so the issue still is there. > > > > Well, I'm not sure what to do now to be honest. > > > > Is this series regarded as the right way to address the problem that > > everybody is comfortable with? Or is it still under discussion? > > We need to solve this problem and that is not under discussion. I also > believe this problem > needs to be solved in a way that addresses the problem where it belongs - not > in the users of > the hot_add API. Both my solution and the one proposed by David > https://lkml.org/lkml/2015/2/12/57 > address this issue. You can select either patch and check it in. I just want > the issue addressed and I am not > married to the solution I proposed. OK, thanks! So having looked at both your patch and the David's one I think that the Andrew's tree is appropriate for any of them. Andrew? _______________________________________________ devel mailing list de...@linuxdriverproject.org http://driverdev.linuxdriverproject.org/mailman/listinfo/driverdev-devel
