Hi Mike,
于 14-9-16 上午11:56, Mike Galbraith 写道:
On Mon, 2014-09-15 at 10:44 -0600, Toshi Kani wrote:
On Mon, 2014-09-15 at 06:25 +0200, Mike Galbraith wrote:
On Thu, 2014-09-11 at 16:21 +0900, Yasuaki Ishimatsu wrote:
There is no response for two months since posting v4.
What can I do for pushing the patch to upstream?
Looks to me like we have two patches floating about for more or less the
same problem, this one, and...
https://lkml.org/lkml/2014/7/29/159
..this one, which you reviewed, and HP both reviewed and tested.
We seem to kinda stuck with Boris having said don't diddle the
cpu_llc_shared_map, but HP/Intel saying that this map diddling fixes
their explosions. If your alternative is preferred over diddling
cpu_llc_shared_map, perhaps HP/Intel can test/confirm that their
explosions stay gone?
Well, Boris mentioned later in his email:
https://lkml.org/lkml/2014/7/22/201
And I agree with his assessment that both patches make sense.
Nonetheless, this just reeks of "department of redundancy department".
I have nothing against doing both really, but it does leave me wondering
if we would not then be merging the mask clearing "just because".
Maybe you miss my reply.
https://lkml.org/lkml/2014/7/29/40
Regards,
Wanpeng Li
-Mike
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
