From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 15/35] x86, lmb: Add lmb_reserve_area_overlap_ok()
Date: Mon, 17 May 2010 11:53:40 -0700
Message-ID: <4BF190B4.70705@zytor.com>
References: <1273796396-29649-1-git-send-email-yinghai@kernel.org>	 <1273796396-29649-16-git-send-email-yinghai@kernel.org>	 <1273804337.21352.396.camel@pasglop> <4BECF158.5070200@oracle.com>	 <1273825807.21352.601.camel@pasglop> <4BED7CE3.1020507@oracle.com>	 <1273876234.21352.639.camel@pasglop>  <20100515073231.GB9877@elte.hu>	 <1274056773.21352.700.camel@pasglop>  <4BF0DE0C.2000905@oracle.com> <1274081072.21352.718.camel@pasglop> <4BF17A50.1050905@oracle.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Return-path: <linux-arch-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: from terminus.zytor.com ([198.137.202.10]:44818 "EHLO mail.zytor.com"
	rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP
	id S1754606Ab0EQTAp (ORCPT <rfc822;linux-arch@vger.kernel.org>);
	Mon, 17 May 2010 15:00:45 -0400
In-Reply-To: <4BF17A50.1050905@oracle.com>
Sender: linux-arch-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-arch.vger.kernel.org>
To: Yinghai <yinghai.lu@oracle.com>
Cc: Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@kernel.crashing.org>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>, Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>, David Miller <davem@davemloft.net>, Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>, Johannes Weiner <hannes@cmpxchg.org>, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-arch@vger.kernel.org

On 05/17/2010 10:18 AM, Yinghai wrote:
>>
>> No. Both will hit 2.6.36. It's way too late to queue up such changes for
>> the 2.6.35 merge window which has already opened.
> 
> i have feeling that your new LMB code will hit 2.6.36. and
> x86 patches that is using to lmb will hit 2.6.37.
> 
> otherwise it will make more merge conflicts between tip and lmb.
> unless put your lmb change to tip?
> 

We can arrange for some way of dealing with this problem... this is not
an issue.

>> Why would it be "too long" ? I keep asking what the heck is going on
>> with having a time bomb on those patches and yet have to get a
>> satisfactory answer.
> 
> why are you thinking that there is time bomb in the patches?

You're the one that keeps saying "that is too long", but without
motivating the hurry.

	-hpa