> > These are fine to me, but should not all go through my tree
> > because most changes are in other architectures.
>
> I assume you're referring to just
> convert-cpu_sibling_map-to-be-a-per-cpu-variable* here.
All the *-to-*per-cpu* patches from Mike yes
>
> > I have nothing pending currently. I rejected
> > also quite a few of these.
>
> You did? I'd have dropped them if you had.
>
> Oh well, I was planning on a maintainer patch-bombing tomorrow - let's go
> through them again.
I'll send you a detailed list after the patch bomb.
> >
> > Hmm, need to recheck the x86_64 bits I think.
>
> Thanks.
Done now (adding ccs)
x86_64-sparsemem_vmemmap-2m-page-size-support.patch
x86_64-sparsemem_vmemmap-vmemmap-x86_64-convert-to-new-helper-based-initialisation.patch
Look like these two should be merged together
Also I'm concerned about a third variant of memmappery. Can we agree
to only merge that when the old sparsemem support is removed from x86-64?
Otherwise it looks good to me.
> How come? Memoryless node can and do occur in real-world machines. Kernel
> should support that?
But a node is just defined by its memory?
> If so, that might be OK - the app just needs a reliable way of working out
> whether it's on a 32- or 64-bit kernel?
That would be ugly and a little error prone (would this case really be
tested in user space normally?) but might work.
>
> > > x86_64-efi-boot-support-efi-frame-buffer-driver.patch
> > > x86_64-efi-boot-support-efi-boot-document.patch
> >
> > This required changes from review I think. And the previous patch is useless
> > without a boot protocol.
>
> So should I drop them?
Yes for now please.
e.g. we at least need a patch to actually check the version number
of the boot protocol.
-Andi
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
