From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
	id S1755124AbbBBL5j (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
	Mon, 2 Feb 2015 06:57:39 -0500
Received: from cpsmtpb-ews05.kpnxchange.com ([213.75.39.8]:62565 "EHLO
	cpsmtpb-ews05.kpnxchange.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK)
	by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1755012AbbBBL5i (ORCPT
	<rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
	Mon, 2 Feb 2015 06:57:38 -0500
Message-ID: <1422878256.19005.22.camel@x220>
Subject: Re: [PATCHv2 17/19] x86: expose number of page table levels on
 Kconfig level
From: Paul Bolle <pebolle@tiscali.nl>
To: "Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill@shutemov.name>
Cc: "Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill.shutemov@linux.intel.com>,
        Martin Schwidefsky <schwidefsky@de.ibm.com>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>, linux-mm@kvack.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Guenter Roeck <linux@roeck-us.net>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>,
        "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>
Date: Mon, 02 Feb 2015 12:57:36 +0100
In-Reply-To: <20150202113740.GA11802@node.dhcp.inet.fi>
References: <1422629008-13689-18-git-send-email-kirill.shutemov@linux.intel.com>
	 <1422664208-220779-1-git-send-email-kirill.shutemov@linux.intel.com>
	 <1422876393.19005.21.camel@x220> <20150202113740.GA11802@node.dhcp.inet.fi>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
X-Mailer: Evolution 3.10.4 (3.10.4-4.fc20) 
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 02 Feb 2015 11:57:37.0127 (UTC) FILETIME=[6FFDAF70:01D03EDF]
X-RcptDomain: vger.kernel.org
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

On Mon, 2015-02-02 at 13:37 +0200, Kirill A. Shutemov wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 02, 2015 at 12:26:33PM +0100, Paul Bolle wrote:
> > Isn't there some (informal) rule to update an entire series to a next
> > version (and not only the patches that were changed in that version)?
> 
> It's up to maintainer. I can do any way. Last time I've asked, Andrew was
> okay with v2 on individual patches.
> 
> > Anyhow, it seems you sent a v2 for 05/19, 11/19 and 17/19 only. Is that
> > correct?
> 
> Correct. Plus one patch to fix build on all !MMU configurations.
> 
> I've also updated the git tree.

Which tree would that be?

Thanks,


Paul Bolle