On Tue, 2016-05-31 at 19:27 +0200, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote:
> On Tue, May 31, 2016 at 07:25:14PM +0200, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, May 31, 2016 at 09:58:28AM -0700, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> > >
> > > On Tue, May 24, 2016 at 04:36:42PM -0700, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote:
> > > >
> > >
On Tue, May 31, 2016 at 07:25:14PM +0200, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote:
> On Tue, May 31, 2016 at 09:58:28AM -0700, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> > On Tue, May 24, 2016 at 04:36:42PM -0700, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote:
> > > Is it a good time for that now? I would hope identifying proper
> > > aliasing uses fo
On Tue, May 31, 2016 at 09:58:28AM -0700, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Tue, May 24, 2016 at 04:36:42PM -0700, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote:
> > Is it a good time for that now? I would hope identifying proper
> > aliasing uses for memremap() might be a bit easier now than for
> > ioremap() given its not
On Tue, May 24, 2016 at 04:36:42PM -0700, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote:
> Is it a good time for that now? I would hope identifying proper
> aliasing uses for memremap() might be a bit easier now than for
> ioremap() given its not used as widely. It may be an easier target to
> also write some grammar ru
Dan, Toshi, Christoph,
I recall a while ago while memremap() was being introduced we
discussed making stronger semantics for memremap() a desirable future
goal [0], along with removal cleanups of ioremap_cache(). This was
when only 2 types were being considered, WB and WT. I see we now have
WC as
5 matches
Mail list logo
