On Wed, 19 Aug 2015 10:08:14 +0200 Christoph Hellwig h...@lst.de 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.
[...]
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 a...@linux-foundation.org
wrote:
On Wed, 19 Aug 2015 10:08:14 +0200 Christoph Hellwig h...@lst.de wrote:
On Tue, Aug 18, 2015 at 09:51:07AM +0200,
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 a...@linux-foundation.org
wrote:
On Wed, 19 Aug 2015 10:08:14 +0200 Christoph Hellwig
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
supposed
Hi Andrew,
On Tue, 18 Aug 2015 07:53:15 +0200 Christoph Hellwig h...@lst.de 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 for-4.3
* Andrew Morton a...@linux-foundation.org wrote:
On Tue, 18 Aug 2015 07:38:25 +0200 Christoph Hellwig h...@lst.de 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.
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?
Linus will be
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 code
On Tue, 18 Aug 2015 07:38:25 +0200 Christoph Hellwig h...@lst.de 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
On Mon, 17 Aug 2015 09:06:51 +0200 Christoph Hellwig h...@lst.de 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
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
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
12 matches
Mail list logo
