On Thu, 2015-08-20 at 09:52 +1000, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> Hi Andrew (sorry, I can't tell who made the incorrect statement below
> that I am replying to),
>
> On Wed, 19 Aug 2015 14:36:56 -0700 Andrew Morton
> wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, 19 Aug 2015 10:08:14 +0200 Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> >
> >
Hi Andrew (sorry, I can't tell who made the incorrect statement below
that I am replying to),
On Wed, 19 Aug 2015 14:36:56 -0700 Andrew Morton
wrote:
>
> On Wed, 19 Aug 2015 10:08:14 +0200 Christoph Hellwig wrote:
>
> > On Tue, Aug 18, 2015 at 09:51:07AM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > > I.e. sh
On Wed, 19 Aug 2015 10:08:14 +0200 Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 18, 2015 at 09:51:07AM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > I.e. shouldn't this be:
> >
> > > I'll merge these 5 patches for 4.4. That means I'll release them into
> > > linux-next after 4.2 is released.
> > >
> > > [...]
> > >
On Tue, Aug 18, 2015 at 09:51:07AM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> I.e. shouldn't this be:
>
> > I'll merge these 5 patches for 4.4. That means I'll release them into
> > linux-next after 4.2 is released.
> >
> > [...]
> >
> > Linus will be releasing 4.2 in 1-2 weeks and until then, linux-next is
* Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Tue, 18 Aug 2015 07:38:25 +0200 Christoph Hellwig wrote:
>
> > On Mon, Aug 17, 2015 at 02:24:29PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > > 110254 bytes saved, shrinking the kernel by a whopping 0.17%.
> > > Thoughts?
> >
> > Sounds fine to me.
>
> OK, I'll clean it up a
Hi Andrew,
On Tue, 18 Aug 2015 07:53:15 +0200 Christoph Hellwig wrote:
>
> On Mon, Aug 17, 2015 at 10:45:52PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > > >
> > > > I'll merge these 5 patches for 4.3. That means I'll release them into
> > > > linux-next after 4.2 is released.
> > >
> > > So you only add
On Mon, Aug 17, 2015 at 10:45:52PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > >
> > > I'll merge these 5 patches for 4.3. That means I'll release them into
> > > linux-next after 4.2 is released.
> >
> > So you only add for-4.3 code to -next after 4.2 is odd? Isn't thast the
> > wrong way around?
>
> Lin
On Tue, 18 Aug 2015 07:38:25 +0200 Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 17, 2015 at 02:24:29PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > 110254 bytes saved, shrinking the kernel by a whopping 0.17%.
> > Thoughts?
>
> Sounds fine to me.
OK, I'll clean it up a bit, check that each uninlining actually ma
On Mon, Aug 17, 2015 at 02:24:29PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> 110254 bytes saved, shrinking the kernel by a whopping 0.17%.
> Thoughts?
Sounds fine to me.
>
> I'll merge these 5 patches for 4.3. That means I'll release them into
> linux-next after 4.2 is released.
So you only add for-4.3 c
On Mon, 17 Aug 2015 09:06:51 +0200 Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> Since 2009 we have a nice asm-generic header implementing lots of DMA API
> functions for architectures using struct dma_map_ops, but unfortunately
> it's still missing a lot of APIs that all architectures still have to
> duplicate.
>
Since 2009 we have a nice asm-generic header implementing lots of DMA API
functions for architectures using struct dma_map_ops, but unfortunately
it's still missing a lot of APIs that all architectures still have to
duplicate.
This series consolidates the remaining functions, although we still
nee
11 matches
Mail list logo
