From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-yw0-f199.google.com (mail-yw0-f199.google.com [209.85.161.199]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 27AE16B02F4 for ; Fri, 11 Aug 2017 12:25:07 -0400 (EDT) Received: by mail-yw0-f199.google.com with SMTP id v17so64281104ywh.15 for ; Fri, 11 Aug 2017 09:25:07 -0700 (PDT) Received: from userp1040.oracle.com (userp1040.oracle.com. [156.151.31.81]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id k10si337754ybg.277.2017.08.11.09.25.06 for (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Fri, 11 Aug 2017 09:25:06 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Re: [v6 07/15] mm: defining memblock_virt_alloc_try_nid_raw References: <1502138329-123460-1-git-send-email-pasha.tatashin@oracle.com> <1502138329-123460-8-git-send-email-pasha.tatashin@oracle.com> <20170811123953.GI30811@dhcp22.suse.cz> <545b7230-2c09-d2f9-f26a-05ef395c36d4@oracle.com> <20170811160646.GT30811@dhcp22.suse.cz> From: Pasha Tatashin Message-ID: <1d93e0eb-080a-ed2b-de2d-092f397a981c@oracle.com> Date: Fri, 11 Aug 2017 12:24:27 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20170811160646.GT30811@dhcp22.suse.cz> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org List-ID: To: Michal Hocko Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, sparclinux@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org, linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org, linux-s390@vger.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, x86@kernel.org, kasan-dev@googlegroups.com, borntraeger@de.ibm.com, heiko.carstens@de.ibm.com, davem@davemloft.net, willy@infradead.org, ard.biesheuvel@linaro.org, will.deacon@arm.com, catalin.marinas@arm.com, sam@ravnborg.org >> Sure, I could do this, but as I understood from earlier Dave Miller's >> comments, we should do one logical change at a time. Hence, introduce API in >> one patch use it in another. So, this is how I tried to organize this patch >> set. Is this assumption incorrect? > > Well, it really depends. If the patch is really small then adding a new > API along with users is easier to review and backport because you have a > clear view of the usage. I believe this is the case here. But if others > feel otherwise I will not object. I will merge them. Thank you, Pasha -- 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