From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S965724AbbLPKO3 (ORCPT ); Wed, 16 Dec 2015 05:14:29 -0500 Received: from foss.arm.com ([217.140.101.70]:54322 "EHLO foss.arm.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S932751AbbLPKO1 (ORCPT ); Wed, 16 Dec 2015 05:14:27 -0500 Date: Wed, 16 Dec 2015 10:14:20 +0000 From: Will Deacon To: Stephen Rothwell Cc: Andrew Morton , Catalin Marinas , linux-next@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Ard Biesheuvel , Yaowei Bai Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the akpm-current tree with the arm64 tree Message-ID: <20151216101420.GA4308@arm.com> References: <20151216160143.5d1a8d1e@canb.auug.org.au> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20151216160143.5d1a8d1e@canb.auug.org.au> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23 (2014-03-12) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Wed, Dec 16, 2015 at 04:01:43PM +1100, Stephen Rothwell wrote: > Hi Andrew, > > Today's linux-next merge of the akpm-current tree got a conflict in: > > include/linux/memblock.h > > between commit: > > bf3d3cc580f9 ("mm/memblock: add MEMBLOCK_NOMAP attribute to memblock memory table") > > from the arm64 tree and commit: > > f7e2bc7d46e9 ("mm/memblock.c: memblock_is_memory()/reserved() can be boolean") > > from the akpm-current tree. > > I fixed it up (see below) and can carry the fix as necessary (no action > is required). > > -- > Cheers, > Stephen Rothwell sfr@canb.auug.org.au > > diff --cc include/linux/memblock.h > index fec66f86eeff,359871f2fedd..000000000000 > --- a/include/linux/memblock.h > +++ b/include/linux/memblock.h > @@@ -325,10 -318,9 +325,10 @@@ phys_addr_t memblock_mem_size(unsigned > phys_addr_t memblock_start_of_DRAM(void); > phys_addr_t memblock_end_of_DRAM(void); > void memblock_enforce_memory_limit(phys_addr_t memory_limit); > - int memblock_is_memory(phys_addr_t addr); > + bool memblock_is_memory(phys_addr_t addr); > +int memblock_is_map_memory(phys_addr_t addr); > int memblock_is_region_memory(phys_addr_t base, phys_addr_t size); > - int memblock_is_reserved(phys_addr_t addr); > + bool memblock_is_reserved(phys_addr_t addr); > bool memblock_is_region_reserved(phys_addr_t base, phys_addr_t size); Thanks, Steven. I guess we should apply similar int->bool treatment to memblock_is_map_memory and memblock_is_region_memory, but it's all cosmetic really. Will