From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Borislav Petkov Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 14/16] x86, nvdimm, kexec: Use walk_iomem_res_desc() for iomem search Date: Mon, 4 Jan 2016 20:41:00 +0100 Message-ID: <20160104194059.GM22941@pd.tnic> References: <1451081365-15190-1-git-send-email-toshi.kani@hpe.com> <1451081365-15190-14-git-send-email-toshi.kani@hpe.com> <20151226103804.GB21988@pd.tnic> <567F315B.8080005@hpe.com> <20151227021257.GA13560@dhcp-128-25.nay.redhat.com> <20151227102406.GB19398@nazgul.tnic> <20160104092937.GB7033@dhcp-128-65.nay.redhat.com> <20160104122619.GH22941@pd.tnic> <1451930260.19330.21.camel@hpe.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1451930260.19330.21.camel@hpe.com> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Toshi Kani Cc: Dave Young , Minfei Huang , linux-arch@vger.kernel.org, linux-nvdimm@ml01.01.org, x86@kernel.org, kexec@lists.infradead.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org, akpm@linux-foundation.org, Dan Williams List-Id: linux-arch.vger.kernel.org On Mon, Jan 04, 2016 at 10:57:40AM -0700, Toshi Kani wrote: > With this change, there will be no caller to walk_iomem_res(). Should we > remove walk_iomem_res() altogether, or keep it for now as a deprecated func > with the checkpatch check? Yes, kill it on the spot so that people don't get crazy ideas. Thanks! -- Regards/Gruss, Boris. ECO tip #101: Trim your mails when you reply. From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail.skyhub.de ([78.46.96.112]:37106 "EHLO mail.skyhub.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751523AbcADTlV (ORCPT ); Mon, 4 Jan 2016 14:41:21 -0500 Date: Mon, 4 Jan 2016 20:41:00 +0100 From: Borislav Petkov Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 14/16] x86, nvdimm, kexec: Use walk_iomem_res_desc() for iomem search Message-ID: <20160104194059.GM22941@pd.tnic> References: <1451081365-15190-1-git-send-email-toshi.kani@hpe.com> <1451081365-15190-14-git-send-email-toshi.kani@hpe.com> <20151226103804.GB21988@pd.tnic> <567F315B.8080005@hpe.com> <20151227021257.GA13560@dhcp-128-25.nay.redhat.com> <20151227102406.GB19398@nazgul.tnic> <20160104092937.GB7033@dhcp-128-65.nay.redhat.com> <20160104122619.GH22941@pd.tnic> <1451930260.19330.21.camel@hpe.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1451930260.19330.21.camel@hpe.com> Sender: linux-arch-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: To: Toshi Kani Cc: Dave Young , Minfei Huang , linux-arch@vger.kernel.org, linux-nvdimm@ml01.01.org, x86@kernel.org, kexec@lists.infradead.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org, akpm@linux-foundation.org, Dan Williams Message-ID: <20160104194100.yiS81VlTSEM0d3m-MAaiTgjTsPtVH4xkqsy8r3aEbVM@z> On Mon, Jan 04, 2016 at 10:57:40AM -0700, Toshi Kani wrote: > With this change, there will be no caller to walk_iomem_res(). Should we > remove walk_iomem_res() altogether, or keep it for now as a deprecated func > with the checkpatch check? Yes, kill it on the spot so that people don't get crazy ideas. Thanks! -- Regards/Gruss, Boris. ECO tip #101: Trim your mails when you reply.