From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: vaishali.thakkar@oracle.com (Vaishali Thakkar) Date: Wed, 23 Mar 2016 21:31:39 +0530 Subject: [PATCH v2 0/6] mm/hugetlb: Fix commandline parsing behavior for invalid hugepagesize In-Reply-To: <20160323133011.GG7059@dhcp22.suse.cz> References: <1458734844-14833-1-git-send-email-vaishali.thakkar@oracle.com> <20160323133011.GG7059@dhcp22.suse.cz> Message-ID: <56F2BDE3.40309@oracle.com> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org On Wednesday 23 March 2016 07:00 PM, Michal Hocko wrote: > On Wed 23-03-16 17:37:18, Vaishali Thakkar wrote: >> Current code fails to ignore the 'hugepages=' parameters when unsupported >> hugepagesize is specified. With this patchset, introduce new architecture >> independent routine hugetlb_bad_size to handle such command line options. >> And then call it in architecture specific code. >> >> Changes since v1: >> - Separated different architecture specific changes in different >> patches >> - CC'ed all arch maintainers > The hugetlb parameters parsing is a bit mess but this at least makes it > behave more consistently. Feel free to add to all patches > Acked-by: Michal Hocko > > On a side note. I have received patches with broken threading - the > follow up patches are not in the single thread under this cover email. > I thought this was the default behavior of git send-email but maybe your > (older) version doesn't do that. --thread option would enforce that > (with --no-chain-reply-to) or you can set it up in the git config. IMHO > it is always better to have the patchset in the single email thread. > Yes, now I have set up my git config for that. Hopefully, things will work properly - patchset in a single thread from the next time. Thanks. -- Vaishali