On 11.08.20 04:21, Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Mon, 10 Aug 2020 09:56:32 +0200 David Hildenbrand wrote:
>
>> On 04.08.20 21:41, David Hildenbrand wrote:
>>> @Andrew can we give this a churn and consider it for v5.9 in case there
>>> are no more comments?
>>
>> @Andrew, Ping, so I assume we'll
On Mon, 10 Aug 2020 09:56:32 +0200 David Hildenbrand wrote:
> On 04.08.20 21:41, David Hildenbrand wrote:
> > @Andrew can we give this a churn and consider it for v5.9 in case there
> > are no more comments?
>
> @Andrew, Ping, so I assume we'll target v5.10?
Yep, sorry. Merging a significant
On 04.08.20 21:41, David Hildenbrand wrote:
> @Andrew can we give this a churn and consider it for v5.9 in case there
> are no more comments?
@Andrew, Ping, so I assume we'll target v5.10?
>
> Patch #1-#4,#6 have RBss or ACKs, patch #5 is virtio-mem stuff maintained
> by me (and MST is aware).
@Andrew can we give this a churn and consider it for v5.9 in case there
are no more comments?
Patch #1-#4,#6 have RBss or ACKs, patch #5 is virtio-mem stuff maintained
by me (and MST is aware).
---
When introducing virtio-mem, the semantics of ZONE_MOVABLE were rather
unclear, which is why we
