On Sun, 01 Jul 2018 21:22:46 +0900,
Mike Rapoport wrote:
>
> (added Yoshinori Sato, here's the beginning of the discussion:
> https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20180625140754.gb29...@dhcp22.suse.cz/)
>
> On Wed, Jun 27, 2018 at 07:02:06PM +0300, Mike Rapoport wrote:
> > On Wed, Jun 27, 2018 at
On Sun, 01 Jul 2018 21:22:46 +0900,
Mike Rapoport wrote:
>
> (added Yoshinori Sato, here's the beginning of the discussion:
> https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20180625140754.gb29...@dhcp22.suse.cz/)
>
> On Wed, Jun 27, 2018 at 07:02:06PM +0300, Mike Rapoport wrote:
> > On Wed, Jun 27, 2018 at
On Sun, 01 Jul 2018 21:22:46 +0900,
Mike Rapoport wrote:
>
> (added Yoshinori Sato, here's the beginning of the discussion:
> https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20180625140754.gb29...@dhcp22.suse.cz/)
>
> On Wed, Jun 27, 2018 at 07:02:06PM +0300, Mike Rapoport wrote:
> > On Wed, Jun 27, 2018 at
On Sun, 01 Jul 2018 21:22:46 +0900,
Mike Rapoport wrote:
>
> (added Yoshinori Sato, here's the beginning of the discussion:
> https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20180625140754.gb29...@dhcp22.suse.cz/)
>
> On Wed, Jun 27, 2018 at 07:02:06PM +0300, Mike Rapoport wrote:
> > On Wed, Jun 27, 2018 at
(added Yoshinori Sato, here's the beginning of the discussion:
https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20180625140754.gb29...@dhcp22.suse.cz/)
On Wed, Jun 27, 2018 at 07:02:06PM +0300, Mike Rapoport wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 27, 2018 at 07:33:55AM -0600, Rob Herring wrote:
> > On Wed, Jun 27, 2018 at 5:27 AM
(added Yoshinori Sato, here's the beginning of the discussion:
https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20180625140754.gb29...@dhcp22.suse.cz/)
On Wed, Jun 27, 2018 at 07:02:06PM +0300, Mike Rapoport wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 27, 2018 at 07:33:55AM -0600, Rob Herring wrote:
> > On Wed, Jun 27, 2018 at 5:27 AM
On Wed, Jun 27, 2018 at 07:33:55AM -0600, Rob Herring wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 27, 2018 at 5:27 AM Mike Rapoport wrote:
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > On Mon, Jun 25, 2018 at 10:09:41AM -0600, Rob Herring wrote:
> > > On Mon, Jun 25, 2018 at 8:08 AM Michal Hocko wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Hi,
> > > > I am
On Wed, Jun 27, 2018 at 07:33:55AM -0600, Rob Herring wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 27, 2018 at 5:27 AM Mike Rapoport wrote:
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > On Mon, Jun 25, 2018 at 10:09:41AM -0600, Rob Herring wrote:
> > > On Mon, Jun 25, 2018 at 8:08 AM Michal Hocko wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Hi,
> > > > I am
On Wed, Jun 27, 2018 at 07:58:19AM -0600, Rob Herring wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 27, 2018 at 4:11 AM Mike Rapoport wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, Jun 25, 2018 at 10:09:41AM -0600, Rob Herring wrote:
> > > On Mon, Jun 25, 2018 at 8:08 AM Michal Hocko wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Hi,
> > > > I am wondering why do we
On Wed, Jun 27, 2018 at 07:58:19AM -0600, Rob Herring wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 27, 2018 at 4:11 AM Mike Rapoport wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, Jun 25, 2018 at 10:09:41AM -0600, Rob Herring wrote:
> > > On Mon, Jun 25, 2018 at 8:08 AM Michal Hocko wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Hi,
> > > > I am wondering why do we
On Wed, Jun 27, 2018 at 4:11 AM Mike Rapoport wrote:
>
> On Mon, Jun 25, 2018 at 10:09:41AM -0600, Rob Herring wrote:
> > On Mon, Jun 25, 2018 at 8:08 AM Michal Hocko wrote:
> > >
> > > Hi,
> > > I am wondering why do we still keep mm/bootmem.c when most architectures
> > > already moved to
On Wed, Jun 27, 2018 at 4:11 AM Mike Rapoport wrote:
>
> On Mon, Jun 25, 2018 at 10:09:41AM -0600, Rob Herring wrote:
> > On Mon, Jun 25, 2018 at 8:08 AM Michal Hocko wrote:
> > >
> > > Hi,
> > > I am wondering why do we still keep mm/bootmem.c when most architectures
> > > already moved to
On Wed, Jun 27, 2018 at 5:27 AM Mike Rapoport wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> On Mon, Jun 25, 2018 at 10:09:41AM -0600, Rob Herring wrote:
> > On Mon, Jun 25, 2018 at 8:08 AM Michal Hocko wrote:
> > >
> > > Hi,
> > > I am wondering why do we still keep mm/bootmem.c when most architectures
> > > already moved
On Wed, Jun 27, 2018 at 5:27 AM Mike Rapoport wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> On Mon, Jun 25, 2018 at 10:09:41AM -0600, Rob Herring wrote:
> > On Mon, Jun 25, 2018 at 8:08 AM Michal Hocko wrote:
> > >
> > > Hi,
> > > I am wondering why do we still keep mm/bootmem.c when most architectures
> > > already moved
Hi,
On Mon, Jun 25, 2018 at 10:09:41AM -0600, Rob Herring wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 25, 2018 at 8:08 AM Michal Hocko wrote:
> >
> > Hi,
> > I am wondering why do we still keep mm/bootmem.c when most architectures
> > already moved to nobootmem. Is there any fundamental reason why others
> > cannot or
Hi,
On Mon, Jun 25, 2018 at 10:09:41AM -0600, Rob Herring wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 25, 2018 at 8:08 AM Michal Hocko wrote:
> >
> > Hi,
> > I am wondering why do we still keep mm/bootmem.c when most architectures
> > already moved to nobootmem. Is there any fundamental reason why others
> > cannot or
On Wed 27-06-18 13:11:44, Mike Rapoport wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 25, 2018 at 10:09:41AM -0600, Rob Herring wrote:
> > On Mon, Jun 25, 2018 at 8:08 AM Michal Hocko wrote:
> > >
> > > Hi,
> > > I am wondering why do we still keep mm/bootmem.c when most architectures
> > > already moved to nobootmem. Is
On Wed 27-06-18 13:11:44, Mike Rapoport wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 25, 2018 at 10:09:41AM -0600, Rob Herring wrote:
> > On Mon, Jun 25, 2018 at 8:08 AM Michal Hocko wrote:
> > >
> > > Hi,
> > > I am wondering why do we still keep mm/bootmem.c when most architectures
> > > already moved to nobootmem. Is
On Mon, Jun 25, 2018 at 10:09:41AM -0600, Rob Herring wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 25, 2018 at 8:08 AM Michal Hocko wrote:
> >
> > Hi,
> > I am wondering why do we still keep mm/bootmem.c when most architectures
> > already moved to nobootmem. Is there any fundamental reason why others
> > cannot or this
On Mon, Jun 25, 2018 at 10:09:41AM -0600, Rob Herring wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 25, 2018 at 8:08 AM Michal Hocko wrote:
> >
> > Hi,
> > I am wondering why do we still keep mm/bootmem.c when most architectures
> > already moved to nobootmem. Is there any fundamental reason why others
> > cannot or this
On Mon 25-06-18 10:09:41, Rob Herring wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 25, 2018 at 8:08 AM Michal Hocko wrote:
> >
> > Hi,
> > I am wondering why do we still keep mm/bootmem.c when most architectures
> > already moved to nobootmem. Is there any fundamental reason why others
> > cannot or this is just a
On Mon 25-06-18 10:09:41, Rob Herring wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 25, 2018 at 8:08 AM Michal Hocko wrote:
> >
> > Hi,
> > I am wondering why do we still keep mm/bootmem.c when most architectures
> > already moved to nobootmem. Is there any fundamental reason why others
> > cannot or this is just a
On Mon, Jun 25, 2018 at 8:08 AM Michal Hocko wrote:
>
> Hi,
> I am wondering why do we still keep mm/bootmem.c when most architectures
> already moved to nobootmem. Is there any fundamental reason why others
> cannot or this is just a matter of work?
Just because no one has done the work. I did
On Mon, Jun 25, 2018 at 8:08 AM Michal Hocko wrote:
>
> Hi,
> I am wondering why do we still keep mm/bootmem.c when most architectures
> already moved to nobootmem. Is there any fundamental reason why others
> cannot or this is just a matter of work?
Just because no one has done the work. I did
Hi,
I am wondering why do we still keep mm/bootmem.c when most architectures
already moved to nobootmem. Is there any fundamental reason why others
cannot or this is just a matter of work? Btw. what really needs to be
done? Btw. is there any documentation telling us what needs to be done
in that
Hi,
I am wondering why do we still keep mm/bootmem.c when most architectures
already moved to nobootmem. Is there any fundamental reason why others
cannot or this is just a matter of work? Btw. what really needs to be
done? Btw. is there any documentation telling us what needs to be done
in that
26 matches
Mail list logo