From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: lauraa@codeaurora.org (Laura Abbott) Date: Wed, 15 Jan 2014 11:08:18 -0800 Subject: [RFC 0/2] Early patches to get rid of meminfo In-Reply-To: References: <1389765322-28582-1-git-send-email-lauraa@codeaurora.org> <20140115135020.GJ30907@bivouac.eciton.net> <52D6CCE5.4010104@codeaurora.org> Message-ID: <52D6DCA2.2000903@codeaurora.org> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org On 1/15/2014 10:03 AM, Ard Biesheuvel wrote: > On 15 January 2014 19:01, Laura Abbott wrote: >> On 1/15/2014 5:50 AM, Leif Lindholm wrote: >>> >>> Hi Laura, >>> >>> On Tue, Jan 14, 2014 at 09:55:20PM -0800, Laura Abbott wrote: >>>> >>>> With the move away from bootmem and the convergence on memblock, it seems >>>> like meminfo should be deprecated as well to avoid duplication. This is >>>> a first pass attempt to just use memblock and not have meminfo >>>> integrated. >>>> There is still a major issue in terms of actually specifying mem at location >>>> on the command line but I wanted to send this out for some early feedback >>>> before putting any more effort into this. I've done basic boot testing on >>>> a simple DT target. >>> >>> >>> I can't see 1/2 and 2/2 - either in my inbox or in the archive. >>> Could you resend? >>> >>> / >>> Leif >> >> >> >> The patches are being held for moderation because apparently they have "a >> suspicious header". Not sure how the cover letter made it through but the >> patches didn't. If they don't get approved by end of the day I'll try >> re-sending. >> > > Hi Laura, > > This is a known issue that is triggered by the fact that the word > PATCH is missing from your subject line. > Could you resend but replace 'RFC' with 'RFC PATCH' ? > Thanks for catching that, I will resend. Laura -- Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of Code Aurora Forum, hosted by The Linux Foundation