From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-oi0-f69.google.com (mail-oi0-f69.google.com [209.85.218.69]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1AB396B0069 for ; Thu, 8 Sep 2016 22:10:19 -0400 (EDT) Received: by mail-oi0-f69.google.com with SMTP id o7so70380950oif.0 for ; Thu, 08 Sep 2016 19:10:19 -0700 (PDT) Received: from szxga03-in.huawei.com (szxga03-in.huawei.com. [119.145.14.66]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id h187si383863oic.32.2016.09.08.19.10.17 for (version=TLS1 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128/128); Thu, 08 Sep 2016 19:10:18 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Re: [PATCH v8 00/16] fix some type infos and bugs for arm64/of numa References: <1472712907-12700-1-git-send-email-thunder.leizhen@huawei.com> <20160908110119.GG1493@arm.com> From: "Leizhen (ThunderTown)" Message-ID: <57D2197E.1030402@huawei.com> Date: Fri, 9 Sep 2016 10:07:58 +0800 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20160908110119.GG1493@arm.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org List-ID: To: Will Deacon Cc: Catalin Marinas , linux-arm-kernel , linux-kernel , Rob Herring , Frank Rowand , devicetree , Andrew Morton , linux-mm , Zefan Li , Xinwei Hu , Tianhong Ding , Hanjun Guo On 2016/9/8 19:01, Will Deacon wrote: > On Thu, Sep 01, 2016 at 02:54:51PM +0800, Zhen Lei wrote: >> v7 -> v8: >> Updated patches according to Will Deacon's review comments, thanks. >> >> The changed patches is: 3, 5, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 15 >> Patch 3 requires an ack from Rob Herring. >> Patch 10 requires an ack from linux-mm. >> >> Hi, Will: >> Something should still be clarified: >> Patch 5, I modified it according to my last reply. BTW, The last sentence >> "srat_disabled() ? -EINVAL : 0" of arm64_acpi_numa_init should be moved >> into acpi_numa_init, I think. >> >> Patch 9, I still leave the code in arch/arm64. >> 1) the implementation of setup_per_cpu_areas on all platforms are different. >> 2) Although my implementation referred to PowerPC, but still something different. >> >> Patch 15, I modified the description again. Can you take a look at it? If this patch is >> dropped, the patch 14 should also be dropped. >> >> Patch 16, How many times the function node_distance to be called rely on the APP(need many tasks >> to be scheduled), I have not prepared yet, so I give up this patch as your advise. > > Ok, I'm trying to pick the pieces out of this patch series and it's not > especially easy. As far as I can tell: > > Patch 3 needs an ack from the device-tree folks Rob just acked. > > Patch 10 needs an ack from the memblock folks I'll immediately send a email to remind them. > > Patch 11 depends on patch 10 > > Patches 14,15,16 can wait for the time being (I still don't see their > value). OK, that's no problem. So I put them in the end beforehand. > > So, I could pick up patches 1-2, 4-9 and 12-13 but it's not clear whether Now you can also add patch 3. > that makes any sense. The whole series seems to be a mix of trivial printk The most valueable patches are: patch 2, 9, 11. The other is just because of a programmer wants the code to be nice. > cleanups, a bunch of core OF stuff, some new features and then some > questionable changes at the end. > > Please throw me a clue, > > Will > > . > -- 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