On Saturday 15 October 2011, Andrew Morton wrote:
>
> On Tue, 11 Oct 2011 15:52:04 +0200
> Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> > What I would really want to hear from you is your opinion on
> > the architecture independent stuff. Obviously, ARM is the
> > most important consumer of the patch set, but I think
On Tue, 11 Oct 2011 15:52:04 +0200
Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> On Tuesday 11 October 2011, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > Russell's going to hate me, but...
> >
> > I do know that he had substantial objections to at least earlier
> > versions of this, and he is a guy who knows of what he speaks.
> >
> > S
On Tuesday 11 October 2011, Andrew Morton wrote:
> Russell's going to hate me, but...
>
> I do know that he had substantial objections to at least earlier
> versions of this, and he is a guy who knows of what he speaks.
>
> So I would want to get a nod from rmk on this work before proceeding.
>
Hello,
On Tuesday, October 11, 2011 12:57 AM Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Fri, 7 Oct 2011 18:27:06 +0200 Arnd Bergmann wrote:
>
> > On Thursday 06 October 2011, Marek Szyprowski wrote:
> > > Once again I decided to post an updated version of the Contiguous Memory
> > > Allocator patches.
> > >
> >
On Fri, 7 Oct 2011 18:27:06 +0200
Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> On Thursday 06 October 2011, Marek Szyprowski wrote:
> > Once again I decided to post an updated version of the Contiguous Memory
> > Allocator patches.
> >
> > This version provides mainly a bugfix for a very rare issue that might
> > hav
On Thursday 06 October 2011, Marek Szyprowski wrote:
> Once again I decided to post an updated version of the Contiguous Memory
> Allocator patches.
>
> This version provides mainly a bugfix for a very rare issue that might
> have changed migration type of the CMA page blocks resulting in dropping
