From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@ziepe.ca>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/5] kernel.h: Add non_block_start/end()
Date: Tue, 3 Sep 2019 04:36:44 -0300
Message-ID: <20190903073644.GB4500@ziepe.ca>
References: <20190826201425.17547-1-daniel.vetter@ffwll.ch>
 <20190826201425.17547-4-daniel.vetter@ffwll.ch>
 <20190827225002.GB30700@ziepe.ca>
 <CAKMK7uHKiLwXLHd1xThZVM1dH-oKrtpDZ=FxLBBwtY7XmJKgtA@mail.gmail.com>
 <20190828184330.GD933@ziepe.ca>
 <CAKMK7uFJESH1XHTCqYoDb4iMfThxnib3Uz=RUcd7h=SS-TJWbg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAKMK7uET7GL-nmRd_wxkxu0KsiYiSZcGTsSstcUpqaT=mKTbmg@mail.gmail.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Return-path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <CAKMK7uET7GL-nmRd_wxkxu0KsiYiSZcGTsSstcUpqaT=mKTbmg@mail.gmail.com>
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
To: Daniel Vetter <daniel.vetter@ffwll.ch>
Cc: LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>, Linux MM <linux-mm@kvack.org>, DRI Development <dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org>, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>, Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>, Michal Hocko <mhocko@suse.com>, David Rientjes <rientjes@google.com>, Christian =?utf-8?B?S8O2bmln?= <christian.koenig@amd.com>, =?utf-8?B?SsOpcsO0bWU=?= Glisse <jglisse@redhat.com>, Masahiro Yamada <yamada.masahiro@socionext.com>, Wei Wang <wvw@google.com>, Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com>, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>, Jann Horn <jannh@google.com>, Feng Tang <feng.tang@intel.com>, Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>, Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@infradead.org>, Daniel Vetter <daniel.vetter@intel.com>
List-Id: dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org

On Tue, Sep 03, 2019 at 09:28:23AM +0200, Daniel Vetter wrote:

> > Cleanest would be a new header I guess, together with might_sleep().
> > But moving that is a bit much I think, there's almost 500 callers of
> > that one from a quick git grep
> >
> > > If dropping do while is the only change then I can edit it in..
> > > I think we have the acks now
> >
> > Yeah sounds simplest, thanks.
> 
> Hi Jason,
> 
> Do you expect me to resend now, or do you plan to do the patchwork
> appeasement when applying? I've seen you merged the other patches
> (thanks!), but not these two here.

Sorry, I didn't get to this before I started travelling, and deferred
it since we were having linux-next related problems with hmm.git. I
hope to do it today.

I will fix it up as promised

Thanks,
Jason