Re: [patch 2/3] CONFIG_HIGHPTE vs. sub-page page tables.

!MAILaRCHIVE_VOTE_RePLACE
Previous message: [thread] [date] [author]
Next message: [thread] [date] [author]
To: Andrew Morton <akpm@...>
Cc: <benh@...>, <linux-kernel@...>, <linux-arch@...>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...>
Date: Monday, February 4, 2008 - 6:36 am

On Sat, 2008-02-02 at 21:53 -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:

Sniff .. my patches .. ;-)


Fine. I've got the patch-merge message, so the first of the series is
done. 


Understood. That is where I jump in and regenerate my patches on the
latest available level. That the patches did hold up for some months in
-mm now without really breaking anything is an indication that we can
push them upstream now, isn't ? That would make the patch problem go
away and I could queue my s390 specific page table rework. Our KVM
people keep asking about it.

-- 
blue skies,
  Martin.

"Reality continues to ruin my life." - Calvin.


--
Previous message: [thread] [date] [author]
Next message: [thread] [date] [author]

Messages in current thread:
Re: [patch 2/3] CONFIG_HIGHPTE vs. sub-page page tables., Benjamin Herrenschmidt, (Sun Feb 3, 1:37 am)
Re: [patch 2/3] CONFIG_HIGHPTE vs. sub-page page tables., Martin Schwidefsky, (Mon Feb 4, 6:36 am)
Re: [patch 2/3] CONFIG_HIGHPTE vs. sub-page page tables., Martin Schwidefsky, (Tue Feb 5, 10:39 am)
Re: [patch 2/3] CONFIG_HIGHPTE vs. sub-page page tables., Martin Schwidefsky, (Wed Feb 6, 5:06 am)
Re: [patch 2/3] CONFIG_HIGHPTE vs. sub-page page tables., Martin Schwidefsky, (Wed Feb 6, 11:50 am)
Re: [patch 2/3] CONFIG_HIGHPTE vs. sub-page page tables., Christoph Hellwig, (Wed Jan 2, 4:44 pm)
Re: [patch 2/3] CONFIG_HIGHPTE vs. sub-page page tables., Geert Uytterhoeven, (Wed Jan 2, 5:24 pm)
Re: [patch 2/3] CONFIG_HIGHPTE vs. sub-page page tables., Benjamin Herrenschmidt, (Wed Jan 2, 5:28 pm)