From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Subject: Re: Audit of "all uses of node_online()" From: Lee Schermerhorn In-Reply-To: <20070802133341.74ce084a.akpm@linux-foundation.org> References: <20070727194316.18614.36380.sendpatchset@localhost> <20070727194322.18614.68855.sendpatchset@localhost> <20070731192241.380e93a0.akpm@linux-foundation.org> <20070731200522.c19b3b95.akpm@linux-foundation.org> <20070731203203.2691ca59.akpm@linux-foundation.org> <1185977011.5059.36.camel@localhost> <1186085994.5040.98.camel@localhost> <20070802133341.74ce084a.akpm@linux-foundation.org> Content-Type: text/plain Date: Thu, 02 Aug 2007 16:45:35 -0400 Message-Id: <1186087535.5040.100.camel@localhost> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Return-Path: To: Andrew Morton Cc: Christoph Lameter , linux-mm@kvack.org, ak@suse.de, Nishanth Aravamudan , pj@sgi.com, kxr@sgi.com, Mel Gorman , KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki List-ID: On Thu, 2007-08-02 at 13:33 -0700, Andrew Morton wrote: > On Thu, 02 Aug 2007 16:19:53 -0400 > Lee Schermerhorn wrote: > > > Note that the list includes a lot of architectural dependent files. > > Shall I do a separate patch for each arch, so that arch maintainer can > > focus on that [I assume they'll want to review], or a single "jumbo > > patch" to reduce traffic? > > Separate patches please, if they are independent. > > Even if they are dependencies, a base patch plus a string of > arch patches would be a nice presentation. > Will do. As I get to them. I'll repost the file list with annotations as well. I've already seen that some files are probably OK as is. Lee -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@kvack.org. For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . Don't email: email@kvack.org