Re: [PATCH 0/4] provide a generic free_initmem implementation

On Thu, Feb 14, 2019 at 08:38:55PM +0200, Mike Rapoport wrote: > On Thu, Feb 14, 2019 at 06:04:16PM +0100, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > > This look fine to me, but I'm a little worried that as-is this will > > just create conflicts with my series.. > > I'll rebase on top of your patches once they ar

Re: [PATCH 0/4] provide a generic free_initmem implementation

On Thu, Feb 14, 2019 at 06:04:16PM +0100, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > This look fine to me, but I'm a little worried that as-is this will > just create conflicts with my series.. I'll rebase on top of your patches once they are in. Or I can send both series as a single set. Preferences? -- Since

Re: [PATCH 0/4] provide a generic free_initmem implementation

This look fine to me, but I'm a little worried that as-is this will just create conflicts with my series..

[PATCH 0/4] provide a generic free_initmem implementation

Hi, Many architectures implement free_initmem() in exactly the same or very similar way: they wrap the call to free_initmem_default() with sometimes different 'poison' parameter. These patches switch those architectures to use a generic implementation that does free_initmem_default(POISON_FREE_IN