All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Bjorn Helgaas <bhelgaas@google.com>
To: "Luis R. Rodriguez" <mcgrof@do-not-panic.com>
Cc: tomi.valkeinen@ti.com, airlied@linux.ie,
	linux-fbdev@vger.kernel.org, luto@amacapital.net,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-pci@vger.kernel.org,
	xen-devel@lists.xensource.com,
	"Luis R. Rodriguez" <mcgrof@suse.com>,
	"Toshi Kani" <toshi.kani@hp.com>,
	"Suresh Siddha" <sbsiddha@gmail.com>,
	"Ingo Molnar" <mingo@elte.hu>,
	"Thomas Gleixner" <tglx@linutronix.de>,
	"Juergen Gross" <jgross@suse.com>,
	"Daniel Vetter" <daniel.vetter@ffwll.ch>,
	"Dave Airlie" <airlied@redhat.com>,
	"Antonino Daplas" <adaplas@gmail.com>,
	"Jean-Christophe Plagniol-Villard" <plagnioj@jcrosoft.com>,
	"Dave Hansen" <dave.hansen@linux.intel.com>,
	"Arnd Bergmann" <arnd@arndb.de>,
	"Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@redhat.com>,
	venkatesh.pallipadi@intel.com,
	"Stefan Bader" <stefan.bader@canonical.com>,
	"Ville Syrjälä" <syrjala@sci.fi>, "Mel Gorman" <mgorman@suse.de>,
	"Vlastimil Babka" <vbabka@suse.cz>,
	"Borislav Petkov" <bp@suse.de>,
	"Davidlohr Bueso" <dbueso@suse.de>,
	konrad.wilk@oracle.com, ville.syrjala@linux.intel.com,
	david.vrabel@citrix.com, jbeulich@suse.com,
	"Roger Pau Monné" <roger.pau@citrix.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 1/4] pci: add pci_iomap_wc() variants
Date: Thu, 21 May 2015 22:26:55 +0000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20150521222655.GF32152@google.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1432163293-20965-2-git-send-email-mcgrof@do-not-panic.com>

On Wed, May 20, 2015 at 04:08:10PM -0700, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote:
> ...
> --- a/lib/pci_iomap.c
> +++ b/lib/pci_iomap.c
> @@ -52,6 +52,46 @@ void __iomem *pci_iomap_range(struct pci_dev *dev,
>  EXPORT_SYMBOL(pci_iomap_range);
>  
>  /**
> + * pci_iomap_wc_range - create a virtual WC mapping cookie for a PCI BAR
> + * @dev: PCI device that owns the BAR
> + * @bar: BAR number
> + * @offset: map memory at the given offset in BAR
> + * @maxlen: max length of the memory to map
> + *
> + * Using this function you will get a __iomem address to your device BAR.
> + * You can access it using ioread*() and iowrite*(). These functions hide
> + * the details if this is a MMIO or PIO address space and will just do what
> + * you expect from them in the correct way. When possible write combining
> + * is used.
> + *
> + * @maxlen specifies the maximum length to map. If you want to get access to
> + * the complete BAR from offset to the end, pass %0 here.
> + * */
> +void __iomem *pci_iomap_wc_range(struct pci_dev *dev,
> +				 int bar,
> +				 unsigned long offset,
> +				 unsigned long maxlen)
> +{
> +	resource_size_t start = pci_resource_start(dev, bar);
> +	resource_size_t len = pci_resource_len(dev, bar);
> +	unsigned long flags = pci_resource_flags(dev, bar);
> +
> +	if (len <= offset || !start)
> +		return NULL;
> +	len -= offset;
> +	start += offset;
> +	if (maxlen && len > maxlen)
> +		len = maxlen;
> +	if (flags & IORESOURCE_IO)
> +		return NULL;
> +	if (flags & IORESOURCE_MEM)
> +		return ioremap_wc(start, len);
> +	/* What? */
> +	return NULL;
> +}
> +EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(pci_iomap_wc_range);
> +
> +/**
>   * pci_iomap - create a virtual mapping cookie for a PCI BAR
>   * @dev: PCI device that owns the BAR
>   * @bar: BAR number
> @@ -70,4 +110,25 @@ void __iomem *pci_iomap(struct pci_dev *dev, int bar, unsigned long maxlen)
>  	return pci_iomap_range(dev, bar, 0, maxlen);
>  }
>  EXPORT_SYMBOL(pci_iomap);
> +
> +/**
> + * pci_iomap_wc - create a virtual WC mapping cookie for a PCI BAR
> + * @dev: PCI device that owns the BAR
> + * @bar: BAR number
> + * @maxlen: length of the memory to map
> + *
> + * Using this function you will get a __iomem address to your device BAR.
> + * You can access it using ioread*() and iowrite*(). These functions hide
> + * the details if this is a MMIO or PIO address space and will just do what
> + * you expect from them in the correct way. When possible write combining
> + * is used.
> + *
> + * @maxlen specifies the maximum length to map. If you want to get access to
> + * the complete BAR without checking for its length first, pass %0 here.
> + * */
> +void __iomem *pci_iomap_wc(struct pci_dev *dev, int bar, unsigned long maxlen)
> +{
> +	return pci_iomap_wc_range(dev, bar, 0, maxlen);
> +}
> +EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(pci_iomap_wc);

Huh.  So you let me talk about marking the unused pcim_iomap_wc()
EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(), but didn't remind me that you also proposed to mark
the symbol you really care about, the one you already have a use for, as
EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL().  Sigh.

In my opinion, if we're going to use EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL() at all, we should
use it consistently and based on technical considerations.  I base this on
statements like the following:

  - "[EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL()] implies that the function is considered an
    internal implementation issue, and not really an interface." [Rusty
    Russell, 1]

  - "... using the xxx_GPL() version to show that it's an internal
    interface ..." [Linus Torvalds, 2]

  - "Anything exported via EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL() is considered by the author
    to be so fundamental to the kernel that using it would be impossible
    without creating a derivative work." [Matthew Garrett, 3]

  - "Linus's initial point for [_GPL symbols] has been so diluted by random
    lobby groups asking for every symbol to be _GPL that they are becoming
    effectively pointless now." [Dave Airlie, 4]

Existing interfaces like these are exported with EXPORT_SYMBOL():

  ioremap()
  ioremap_wc()
  ioremap_prot()
  pci_iomap()
  pci_map_rom()

I would argue that pci_iomap_wc() is similar in spirit and is no more an
internal implementation issue than they are, and should be exported
similarly.

So my *advice* is to use EXPORT_SYMBOL() in this case, because that's a
choice you can defend on technical grounds.  I think it's hard to argue
that pci_iomap_wc() is so fundamental or unique to Linux that a caller
would automatically be a derivative work.

Will I still merge it as EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL()?  Maybe.  I don't feel *good*
about it because the only explanation I can give is "the author wanted it
that way," and that's unsatisfying.  But I did already ack it (before I
noticed the _GPL() issue), and I won't try to retract that and prevent
somebody else from merging it.  And maybe your proposal to clarify the
kernel-hacking.tmpl language will convince me.

Bjorn

[1] http://git.kernel.org/cgit/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/commit/?id¶c17ea4eff3
[2] http://lkml.kernel.org/r/Pine.LNX.4.64.0510050742550.31407@g5.osdl.org
[3] http://mjg59.dreamwidth.org/31357.html
[4] http://lkml.kernel.org/r/CAPM=9tzsT+nah2P-qZ8iKW=aTZJzYgm18mMWyy2-RVkoOSwyjg@mail.gmail.com

WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Bjorn Helgaas <bhelgaas@google.com>
To: "Luis R. Rodriguez" <mcgrof@do-not-panic.com>
Cc: tomi.valkeinen@ti.com, airlied@linux.ie,
	linux-fbdev@vger.kernel.org, luto@amacapital.net,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-pci@vger.kernel.org,
	xen-devel@lists.xensource.com,
	"Luis R. Rodriguez" <mcgrof@suse.com>,
	"Toshi Kani" <toshi.kani@hp.com>,
	"Suresh Siddha" <sbsiddha@gmail.com>,
	"Ingo Molnar" <mingo@elte.hu>,
	"Thomas Gleixner" <tglx@linutronix.de>,
	"Juergen Gross" <jgross@suse.com>,
	"Daniel Vetter" <daniel.vetter@ffwll.ch>,
	"Dave Airlie" <airlied@redhat.com>,
	"Antonino Daplas" <adaplas@gmail.com>,
	"Jean-Christophe Plagniol-Villard" <plagnioj@jcrosoft.com>,
	"Dave Hansen" <dave.hansen@linux.intel.com>,
	"Arnd Bergmann" <arnd@arndb.de>,
	"Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@redhat.com>,
	venkatesh.pallipadi@intel.com,
	"Stefan Bader" <stefan.bader@canonical.com>,
	"Ville Syrjälä" <syrjala@sci.fi>, "Mel Gorman" <mgorman@suse.de>,
	"Vlastimil Babka" <vbabka@suse.cz>,
	"Borislav Petkov" <bp@suse.de>,
	"Davidlohr Bueso" <dbueso@suse.de>,
	konrad.wilk@oracle.com, ville.syrjala@linux.intel.com,
	david.vrabel@citrix.com, jbeulich@suse.com,
	"Roger Pau Monné" <roger.pau@citrix.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 1/4] pci: add pci_iomap_wc() variants
Date: Thu, 21 May 2015 17:26:55 -0500	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20150521222655.GF32152@google.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1432163293-20965-2-git-send-email-mcgrof@do-not-panic.com>

On Wed, May 20, 2015 at 04:08:10PM -0700, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote:
> ...
> --- a/lib/pci_iomap.c
> +++ b/lib/pci_iomap.c
> @@ -52,6 +52,46 @@ void __iomem *pci_iomap_range(struct pci_dev *dev,
>  EXPORT_SYMBOL(pci_iomap_range);
>  
>  /**
> + * pci_iomap_wc_range - create a virtual WC mapping cookie for a PCI BAR
> + * @dev: PCI device that owns the BAR
> + * @bar: BAR number
> + * @offset: map memory at the given offset in BAR
> + * @maxlen: max length of the memory to map
> + *
> + * Using this function you will get a __iomem address to your device BAR.
> + * You can access it using ioread*() and iowrite*(). These functions hide
> + * the details if this is a MMIO or PIO address space and will just do what
> + * you expect from them in the correct way. When possible write combining
> + * is used.
> + *
> + * @maxlen specifies the maximum length to map. If you want to get access to
> + * the complete BAR from offset to the end, pass %0 here.
> + * */
> +void __iomem *pci_iomap_wc_range(struct pci_dev *dev,
> +				 int bar,
> +				 unsigned long offset,
> +				 unsigned long maxlen)
> +{
> +	resource_size_t start = pci_resource_start(dev, bar);
> +	resource_size_t len = pci_resource_len(dev, bar);
> +	unsigned long flags = pci_resource_flags(dev, bar);
> +
> +	if (len <= offset || !start)
> +		return NULL;
> +	len -= offset;
> +	start += offset;
> +	if (maxlen && len > maxlen)
> +		len = maxlen;
> +	if (flags & IORESOURCE_IO)
> +		return NULL;
> +	if (flags & IORESOURCE_MEM)
> +		return ioremap_wc(start, len);
> +	/* What? */
> +	return NULL;
> +}
> +EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(pci_iomap_wc_range);
> +
> +/**
>   * pci_iomap - create a virtual mapping cookie for a PCI BAR
>   * @dev: PCI device that owns the BAR
>   * @bar: BAR number
> @@ -70,4 +110,25 @@ void __iomem *pci_iomap(struct pci_dev *dev, int bar, unsigned long maxlen)
>  	return pci_iomap_range(dev, bar, 0, maxlen);
>  }
>  EXPORT_SYMBOL(pci_iomap);
> +
> +/**
> + * pci_iomap_wc - create a virtual WC mapping cookie for a PCI BAR
> + * @dev: PCI device that owns the BAR
> + * @bar: BAR number
> + * @maxlen: length of the memory to map
> + *
> + * Using this function you will get a __iomem address to your device BAR.
> + * You can access it using ioread*() and iowrite*(). These functions hide
> + * the details if this is a MMIO or PIO address space and will just do what
> + * you expect from them in the correct way. When possible write combining
> + * is used.
> + *
> + * @maxlen specifies the maximum length to map. If you want to get access to
> + * the complete BAR without checking for its length first, pass %0 here.
> + * */
> +void __iomem *pci_iomap_wc(struct pci_dev *dev, int bar, unsigned long maxlen)
> +{
> +	return pci_iomap_wc_range(dev, bar, 0, maxlen);
> +}
> +EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(pci_iomap_wc);

Huh.  So you let me talk about marking the unused pcim_iomap_wc()
EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(), but didn't remind me that you also proposed to mark
the symbol you really care about, the one you already have a use for, as
EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL().  Sigh.

In my opinion, if we're going to use EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL() at all, we should
use it consistently and based on technical considerations.  I base this on
statements like the following:

  - "[EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL()] implies that the function is considered an
    internal implementation issue, and not really an interface." [Rusty
    Russell, 1]

  - "... using the xxx_GPL() version to show that it's an internal
    interface ..." [Linus Torvalds, 2]

  - "Anything exported via EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL() is considered by the author
    to be so fundamental to the kernel that using it would be impossible
    without creating a derivative work." [Matthew Garrett, 3]

  - "Linus's initial point for [_GPL symbols] has been so diluted by random
    lobby groups asking for every symbol to be _GPL that they are becoming
    effectively pointless now." [Dave Airlie, 4]

Existing interfaces like these are exported with EXPORT_SYMBOL():

  ioremap()
  ioremap_wc()
  ioremap_prot()
  pci_iomap()
  pci_map_rom()

I would argue that pci_iomap_wc() is similar in spirit and is no more an
internal implementation issue than they are, and should be exported
similarly.

So my *advice* is to use EXPORT_SYMBOL() in this case, because that's a
choice you can defend on technical grounds.  I think it's hard to argue
that pci_iomap_wc() is so fundamental or unique to Linux that a caller
would automatically be a derivative work.

Will I still merge it as EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL()?  Maybe.  I don't feel *good*
about it because the only explanation I can give is "the author wanted it
that way," and that's unsatisfying.  But I did already ack it (before I
noticed the _GPL() issue), and I won't try to retract that and prevent
somebody else from merging it.  And maybe your proposal to clarify the
kernel-hacking.tmpl language will convince me.

Bjorn

[1] http://git.kernel.org/cgit/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/commit/?id=b6c17ea4eff3
[2] http://lkml.kernel.org/r/Pine.LNX.4.64.0510050742550.31407@g5.osdl.org
[3] http://mjg59.dreamwidth.org/31357.html
[4] http://lkml.kernel.org/r/CAPM=9tzsT+nah2P-qZ8iKW=aTZJzYgm18mMWyy2-RVkoOSwyjg@mail.gmail.com

WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Bjorn Helgaas <bhelgaas@google.com>
To: "Luis R. Rodriguez" <mcgrof@do-not-panic.com>
Cc: tomi.valkeinen@ti.com, airlied@linux.ie,
	linux-fbdev@vger.kernel.org, luto@amacapital.net,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-pci@vger.kernel.org,
	xen-devel@lists.xensource.com,
	"Luis R. Rodriguez" <mcgrof@suse.com>,
	"Toshi Kani" <toshi.kani@hp.com>,
	"Suresh Siddha" <sbsiddha@gmail.com>,
	"Ingo Molnar" <mingo@elte.hu>,
	"Thomas Gleixner" <tglx@linutronix.de>,
	"Juergen Gross" <jgross@suse.com>,
	"Daniel Vetter" <daniel.vetter@ffwll.ch>,
	"Dave Airlie" <airlied@redhat.com>,
	"Antonino Daplas" <adaplas@gmail.com>,
	"Jean-Christophe Plagniol-Villard" <plagnioj@jcrosoft.com>,
	"Dave Hansen" <dave.hansen@linux.intel.com>,
	"Arnd Bergmann" <arnd@arndb.de>,
	"Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@redhat.com>,
	venkatesh.pallipadi@intel.com,
	"Stefan Bader" <stefan.bader@canonical.com>,
	"Ville Syrjälä" <syrjala@sci.fi>, "Mel Gorman" <mgorman@suse.de>,
	"Vlastimil Babka" <vbabka@suse.cz>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 1/4] pci: add pci_iomap_wc() variants
Date: Thu, 21 May 2015 17:26:55 -0500	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20150521222655.GF32152@google.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1432163293-20965-2-git-send-email-mcgrof@do-not-panic.com>

On Wed, May 20, 2015 at 04:08:10PM -0700, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote:
> ...
> --- a/lib/pci_iomap.c
> +++ b/lib/pci_iomap.c
> @@ -52,6 +52,46 @@ void __iomem *pci_iomap_range(struct pci_dev *dev,
>  EXPORT_SYMBOL(pci_iomap_range);
>  
>  /**
> + * pci_iomap_wc_range - create a virtual WC mapping cookie for a PCI BAR
> + * @dev: PCI device that owns the BAR
> + * @bar: BAR number
> + * @offset: map memory at the given offset in BAR
> + * @maxlen: max length of the memory to map
> + *
> + * Using this function you will get a __iomem address to your device BAR.
> + * You can access it using ioread*() and iowrite*(). These functions hide
> + * the details if this is a MMIO or PIO address space and will just do what
> + * you expect from them in the correct way. When possible write combining
> + * is used.
> + *
> + * @maxlen specifies the maximum length to map. If you want to get access to
> + * the complete BAR from offset to the end, pass %0 here.
> + * */
> +void __iomem *pci_iomap_wc_range(struct pci_dev *dev,
> +				 int bar,
> +				 unsigned long offset,
> +				 unsigned long maxlen)
> +{
> +	resource_size_t start = pci_resource_start(dev, bar);
> +	resource_size_t len = pci_resource_len(dev, bar);
> +	unsigned long flags = pci_resource_flags(dev, bar);
> +
> +	if (len <= offset || !start)
> +		return NULL;
> +	len -= offset;
> +	start += offset;
> +	if (maxlen && len > maxlen)
> +		len = maxlen;
> +	if (flags & IORESOURCE_IO)
> +		return NULL;
> +	if (flags & IORESOURCE_MEM)
> +		return ioremap_wc(start, len);
> +	/* What? */
> +	return NULL;
> +}
> +EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(pci_iomap_wc_range);
> +
> +/**
>   * pci_iomap - create a virtual mapping cookie for a PCI BAR
>   * @dev: PCI device that owns the BAR
>   * @bar: BAR number
> @@ -70,4 +110,25 @@ void __iomem *pci_iomap(struct pci_dev *dev, int bar, unsigned long maxlen)
>  	return pci_iomap_range(dev, bar, 0, maxlen);
>  }
>  EXPORT_SYMBOL(pci_iomap);
> +
> +/**
> + * pci_iomap_wc - create a virtual WC mapping cookie for a PCI BAR
> + * @dev: PCI device that owns the BAR
> + * @bar: BAR number
> + * @maxlen: length of the memory to map
> + *
> + * Using this function you will get a __iomem address to your device BAR.
> + * You can access it using ioread*() and iowrite*(). These functions hide
> + * the details if this is a MMIO or PIO address space and will just do what
> + * you expect from them in the correct way. When possible write combining
> + * is used.
> + *
> + * @maxlen specifies the maximum length to map. If you want to get access to
> + * the complete BAR without checking for its length first, pass %0 here.
> + * */
> +void __iomem *pci_iomap_wc(struct pci_dev *dev, int bar, unsigned long maxlen)
> +{
> +	return pci_iomap_wc_range(dev, bar, 0, maxlen);
> +}
> +EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(pci_iomap_wc);

Huh.  So you let me talk about marking the unused pcim_iomap_wc()
EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(), but didn't remind me that you also proposed to mark
the symbol you really care about, the one you already have a use for, as
EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL().  Sigh.

In my opinion, if we're going to use EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL() at all, we should
use it consistently and based on technical considerations.  I base this on
statements like the following:

  - "[EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL()] implies that the function is considered an
    internal implementation issue, and not really an interface." [Rusty
    Russell, 1]

  - "... using the xxx_GPL() version to show that it's an internal
    interface ..." [Linus Torvalds, 2]

  - "Anything exported via EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL() is considered by the author
    to be so fundamental to the kernel that using it would be impossible
    without creating a derivative work." [Matthew Garrett, 3]

  - "Linus's initial point for [_GPL symbols] has been so diluted by random
    lobby groups asking for every symbol to be _GPL that they are becoming
    effectively pointless now." [Dave Airlie, 4]

Existing interfaces like these are exported with EXPORT_SYMBOL():

  ioremap()
  ioremap_wc()
  ioremap_prot()
  pci_iomap()
  pci_map_rom()

I would argue that pci_iomap_wc() is similar in spirit and is no more an
internal implementation issue than they are, and should be exported
similarly.

So my *advice* is to use EXPORT_SYMBOL() in this case, because that's a
choice you can defend on technical grounds.  I think it's hard to argue
that pci_iomap_wc() is so fundamental or unique to Linux that a caller
would automatically be a derivative work.

Will I still merge it as EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL()?  Maybe.  I don't feel *good*
about it because the only explanation I can give is "the author wanted it
that way," and that's unsatisfying.  But I did already ack it (before I
noticed the _GPL() issue), and I won't try to retract that and prevent
somebody else from merging it.  And maybe your proposal to clarify the
kernel-hacking.tmpl language will convince me.

Bjorn

[1] http://git.kernel.org/cgit/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/commit/?id=b6c17ea4eff3
[2] http://lkml.kernel.org/r/Pine.LNX.4.64.0510050742550.31407@g5.osdl.org
[3] http://mjg59.dreamwidth.org/31357.html
[4] http://lkml.kernel.org/r/CAPM=9tzsT+nah2P-qZ8iKW=aTZJzYgm18mMWyy2-RVkoOSwyjg@mail.gmail.com

  reply	other threads:[~2015-05-21 22:26 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 48+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2015-05-20 23:08 [PATCH v6 0/4] pci: add and use pci_iomap_wc() Luis R. Rodriguez
2015-05-20 23:08 ` Luis R. Rodriguez
2015-05-20 23:08 ` [PATCH v6 1/4] pci: add pci_iomap_wc() variants Luis R. Rodriguez
2015-05-20 23:08   ` Luis R. Rodriguez
2015-05-20 23:08   ` Luis R. Rodriguez
2015-05-21 22:26   ` Bjorn Helgaas [this message]
2015-05-21 22:26     ` Bjorn Helgaas
2015-05-21 22:26     ` Bjorn Helgaas
2015-05-21 22:33   ` Bjorn Helgaas
2015-05-21 22:33     ` Bjorn Helgaas
2015-05-21 22:33     ` Bjorn Helgaas
2015-05-22  0:23     ` Luis R. Rodriguez
2015-05-22  0:23       ` Luis R. Rodriguez
2015-05-22  0:23       ` Luis R. Rodriguez
2015-05-26 17:40       ` Bjorn Helgaas
2015-05-26 17:40         ` Bjorn Helgaas
2015-05-26 17:40         ` Bjorn Helgaas
2015-05-27 20:04         ` Luis R. Rodriguez
2015-05-27 20:04           ` Luis R. Rodriguez
2015-05-27 20:04           ` Luis R. Rodriguez
2015-05-29  0:36           ` Luis R. Rodriguez
2015-05-29  0:36             ` Luis R. Rodriguez
2015-05-29  0:36             ` Luis R. Rodriguez
2015-05-29  5:57             ` Tomi Valkeinen
2015-05-29  5:57               ` Tomi Valkeinen
2015-05-29  5:57               ` Tomi Valkeinen
2015-05-29 19:24               ` Luis R. Rodriguez
2015-05-29 19:24                 ` Luis R. Rodriguez
2015-05-29 19:24                 ` Luis R. Rodriguez
2015-06-16 19:16             ` Luis R. Rodriguez
2015-06-16 19:16               ` Luis R. Rodriguez
2015-06-16 19:16               ` Luis R. Rodriguez
2015-06-16 22:20               ` Bjorn Helgaas
2015-06-16 22:20                 ` Bjorn Helgaas
2015-06-16 22:20                 ` Bjorn Helgaas
2015-06-19 21:06                 ` Luis R. Rodriguez
2015-06-19 21:06                   ` Luis R. Rodriguez
2015-06-19 21:06                   ` Luis R. Rodriguez
2015-06-19 21:06                   ` Luis R. Rodriguez
2015-06-19 21:18                   ` Bjorn Helgaas
2015-06-19 21:18                     ` Bjorn Helgaas
2015-06-19 21:18                     ` Bjorn Helgaas
2015-05-20 23:08 ` [PATCH v6 2/4] video: fbdev: arkfb: use arch_phys_wc_add() and pci_iomap_wc() Luis R. Rodriguez
2015-05-20 23:08   ` Luis R. Rodriguez
2015-05-20 23:08 ` [PATCH v6 3/4] video: fbdev: s3fb: " Luis R. Rodriguez
2015-05-20 23:08   ` Luis R. Rodriguez
2015-05-20 23:08 ` [PATCH v6 4/4] video: fbdev: vt8623fb: " Luis R. Rodriguez
2015-05-20 23:08   ` Luis R. Rodriguez

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=20150521222655.GF32152@google.com \
    --to=bhelgaas@google.com \
    --cc=adaplas@gmail.com \
    --cc=airlied@linux.ie \
    --cc=airlied@redhat.com \
    --cc=arnd@arndb.de \
    --cc=bp@suse.de \
    --cc=daniel.vetter@ffwll.ch \
    --cc=dave.hansen@linux.intel.com \
    --cc=david.vrabel@citrix.com \
    --cc=dbueso@suse.de \
    --cc=jbeulich@suse.com \
    --cc=jgross@suse.com \
    --cc=konrad.wilk@oracle.com \
    --cc=linux-fbdev@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-pci@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=luto@amacapital.net \
    --cc=mcgrof@do-not-panic.com \
    --cc=mcgrof@suse.com \
    --cc=mgorman@suse.de \
    --cc=mingo@elte.hu \
    --cc=mst@redhat.com \
    --cc=plagnioj@jcrosoft.com \
    --cc=roger.pau@citrix.com \
    --cc=sbsiddha@gmail.com \
    --cc=stefan.bader@canonical.com \
    --cc=syrjala@sci.fi \
    --cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
    --cc=tomi.valkeinen@ti.com \
    --cc=toshi.kani@hp.com \
    --cc=vbabka@suse.cz \
    --cc=venkatesh.pallipadi@intel.com \
    --cc=ville.syrjala@linux.intel.com \
    --cc=xen-devel@lists.xensource.com \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.