From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from e7.ny.us.ibm.com (e7.ny.us.ibm.com [32.97.182.137]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client CN "e7.ny.us.ibm.com", Issuer "Equifax" (verified OK)) by ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 820D1B70B5 for ; Tue, 27 Jul 2010 12:36:59 +1000 (EST) Received: from d01relay07.pok.ibm.com (d01relay07.pok.ibm.com [9.56.227.147]) by e7.ny.us.ibm.com (8.14.4/8.13.1) with ESMTP id o6R2O1oZ011509 for ; Mon, 26 Jul 2010 22:24:01 -0400 Received: from d01av01.pok.ibm.com (d01av01.pok.ibm.com [9.56.224.215]) by d01relay07.pok.ibm.com (8.13.8/8.13.8/NCO v10.0) with ESMTP id o6R2at7R1269896 for ; Mon, 26 Jul 2010 22:36:55 -0400 Received: from d01av01.pok.ibm.com (loopback [127.0.0.1]) by d01av01.pok.ibm.com (8.14.4/8.13.1/NCO v10.0 AVout) with ESMTP id o6R2as4Y013907 for ; Mon, 26 Jul 2010 22:36:55 -0400 Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/8] v3 Allow memory_block to span multiple memory sections From: Dave Hansen To: Nathan Fontenot In-Reply-To: <4C4A5985.6000206@austin.ibm.com> References: <4C451BF5.50304@austin.ibm.com> <4C451E1C.8070907@austin.ibm.com> <1279653481.9785.4.camel@nimitz> <4C4A5985.6000206@austin.ibm.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ANSI_X3.4-1968" Date: Mon, 26 Jul 2010 19:36:52 -0700 Message-ID: <1280198212.16922.422.camel@nimitz> Mime-Version: 1.0 Cc: linux-mm@kvack.org, greg@kroah.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki , linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org List-Id: Linux on PowerPC Developers Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , On Fri, 2010-07-23 at 22:09 -0500, Nathan Fontenot wrote: > If we add a lock should I submit it as part of this patchset? or > submit it > as a follow-on? It should probably be at the beginning of the patch set. We don't want to have a case where your set introduces races that we _need_ a later patch to fix. -- Dave From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752134Ab0G0ChA (ORCPT ); Mon, 26 Jul 2010 22:37:00 -0400 Received: from e6.ny.us.ibm.com ([32.97.182.146]:46929 "EHLO e6.ny.us.ibm.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751430Ab0G0Cg6 (ORCPT ); Mon, 26 Jul 2010 22:36:58 -0400 Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/8] v3 Allow memory_block to span multiple memory sections From: Dave Hansen To: Nathan Fontenot Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org, linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org, KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki , greg@kroah.com In-Reply-To: <4C4A5985.6000206@austin.ibm.com> References: <4C451BF5.50304@austin.ibm.com> <4C451E1C.8070907@austin.ibm.com> <1279653481.9785.4.camel@nimitz> <4C4A5985.6000206@austin.ibm.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ANSI_X3.4-1968" Date: Mon, 26 Jul 2010 19:36:52 -0700 Message-ID: <1280198212.16922.422.camel@nimitz> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.28.1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Fri, 2010-07-23 at 22:09 -0500, Nathan Fontenot wrote: > If we add a lock should I submit it as part of this patchset? or > submit it > as a follow-on? It should probably be at the beginning of the patch set. We don't want to have a case where your set introduces races that we _need_ a later patch to fix. -- Dave From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail137.messagelabs.com (mail137.messagelabs.com [216.82.249.19]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B51D5600044 for ; Mon, 26 Jul 2010 22:36:58 -0400 (EDT) Received: from d01relay06.pok.ibm.com (d01relay06.pok.ibm.com [9.56.227.116]) by e3.ny.us.ibm.com (8.14.4/8.13.1) with ESMTP id o6R2MIII019432 for ; Mon, 26 Jul 2010 22:22:18 -0400 Received: from d01av01.pok.ibm.com (d01av01.pok.ibm.com [9.56.224.215]) by d01relay06.pok.ibm.com (8.13.8/8.13.8/NCO v10.0) with ESMTP id o6R2atWk1613850 for ; Mon, 26 Jul 2010 22:36:55 -0400 Received: from d01av01.pok.ibm.com (loopback [127.0.0.1]) by d01av01.pok.ibm.com (8.14.4/8.13.1/NCO v10.0 AVout) with ESMTP id o6R2as4W013907 for ; Mon, 26 Jul 2010 22:36:55 -0400 Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/8] v3 Allow memory_block to span multiple memory sections From: Dave Hansen In-Reply-To: <4C4A5985.6000206@austin.ibm.com> References: <4C451BF5.50304@austin.ibm.com> <4C451E1C.8070907@austin.ibm.com> <1279653481.9785.4.camel@nimitz> <4C4A5985.6000206@austin.ibm.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ANSI_X3.4-1968" Date: Mon, 26 Jul 2010 19:36:52 -0700 Message-ID: <1280198212.16922.422.camel@nimitz> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org To: Nathan Fontenot Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org, linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org, KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki , greg@kroah.com List-ID: On Fri, 2010-07-23 at 22:09 -0500, Nathan Fontenot wrote: > If we add a lock should I submit it as part of this patchset? or > submit it > as a follow-on? It should probably be at the beginning of the patch set. We don't want to have a case where your set introduces races that we _need_ a later patch to fix. -- Dave -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@kvack.org. For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . Don't email: email@kvack.org