From: Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@intel.com>
To: David Hildenbrand <david@redhat.com>
Cc: Mike Rapoport <rppt@linux.ibm.com>, Justin He <Justin.He@arm.com>,
Michal Hocko <mhocko@kernel.org>,
Catalin Marinas <Catalin.Marinas@arm.com>,
Will Deacon <will@kernel.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
Baoquan He <bhe@redhat.com>, Chuhong Yuan <hslester96@gmail.com>,
"linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org"
<linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org>,
"linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
"linux-mm@kvack.org" <linux-mm@kvack.org>,
"linux-nvdimm@lists.01.org" <linux-nvdimm@lists.01.org>,
Kaly Xin <Kaly.Xin@arm.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/3] arm64/numa: export memory_add_physaddr_to_nid as EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL
Date: Wed, 8 Jul 2020 00:04:06 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <CAPcyv4inaZgmv=S36_DofA9prKhWg4KBNPkTvzSALO6Vtb9ddw@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <c4ee0a94-c980-80ca-c43d-15729e1a3663@redhat.com>
On Tue, Jul 7, 2020 at 11:59 PM David Hildenbrand <david@redhat.com> wrote:
>
> On 08.07.20 08:22, Mike Rapoport wrote:
> > On Tue, Jul 07, 2020 at 09:27:43PM -0700, Dan Williams wrote:
> >> On Tue, Jul 7, 2020 at 9:08 PM Justin He <Justin.He@arm.com> wrote:
> >> [..]
> >>>> Especially for architectures that use memblock info for numa info
> >>>> (which seems to be everyone except x86) why not implement a generic
> >>>> memory_add_physaddr_to_nid() that does:
> >>>>
> >>>> int memory_add_physaddr_to_nid(u64 addr)
> >>>> {
> >>>> unsigned long start_pfn, end_pfn, pfn = PHYS_PFN(addr);
> >>>> int nid;
> >>>>
> >>>> for_each_online_node(nid) {
> >>>> get_pfn_range_for_nid(nid, &start_pfn, &end_pfn);
> >>>> if (pfn >= start_pfn && pfn <= end_pfn)
> >>>> return nid;
> >>>> }
> >>>> return NUMA_NO_NODE;
> >>>> }
> >>>
> >>> Thanks for your suggestion,
> >>> Could I wrap the codes and let memory_add_physaddr_to_nid simply invoke
> >>> phys_to_target_node()?
> >>
> >> I think it needs to be the reverse. phys_to_target_node() should call
> >> memory_add_physaddr_to_nid() by default, but fall back to searching
> >> reserved memory address ranges in memblock. See phys_to_target_node()
> >> in arch/x86/mm/numa.c. That one uses numa_meminfo instead of memblock,
> >> but the principle is the same i.e. that a target node may not be
> >> represented in memblock.memory, but memblock.reserved. I'm working on
> >> a patch to provide a function similar to get_pfn_range_for_nid() that
> >> operates on reserved memory.
> >
> > Do we really need yet another memblock iterator?
> > I think only x86 has memory that is not in memblock.memory but only in
> > memblock.reserved.
>
> Reading about abusing the memblock allcoator once again in memory
> hotplug paths makes me shiver.
Technical reasoning please?
arm64 numa information is established from memblock data. It seems
counterproductive to ignore that fact if we're already touching
memory_add_physaddr_to_nid() and have a use case for a driver to call
it.
_______________________________________________
Linux-nvdimm mailing list -- linux-nvdimm@lists.01.org
To unsubscribe send an email to linux-nvdimm-leave@lists.01.org
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@intel.com>
To: David Hildenbrand <david@redhat.com>
Cc: Mike Rapoport <rppt@linux.ibm.com>, Justin He <Justin.He@arm.com>,
Michal Hocko <mhocko@kernel.org>,
Catalin Marinas <Catalin.Marinas@arm.com>,
Will Deacon <will@kernel.org>,
Vishal Verma <vishal.l.verma@intel.com>,
Dave Jiang <dave.jiang@intel.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
Baoquan He <bhe@redhat.com>, Chuhong Yuan <hslester96@gmail.com>,
"linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org"
<linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org>,
"linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
"linux-mm@kvack.org" <linux-mm@kvack.org>,
"linux-nvdimm@lists.01.org" <linux-nvdimm@lists.01.org>,
Kaly Xin <Kaly.Xin@arm.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/3] arm64/numa: export memory_add_physaddr_to_nid as EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL
Date: Wed, 8 Jul 2020 00:04:06 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <CAPcyv4inaZgmv=S36_DofA9prKhWg4KBNPkTvzSALO6Vtb9ddw@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <c4ee0a94-c980-80ca-c43d-15729e1a3663@redhat.com>
On Tue, Jul 7, 2020 at 11:59 PM David Hildenbrand <david@redhat.com> wrote:
>
> On 08.07.20 08:22, Mike Rapoport wrote:
> > On Tue, Jul 07, 2020 at 09:27:43PM -0700, Dan Williams wrote:
> >> On Tue, Jul 7, 2020 at 9:08 PM Justin He <Justin.He@arm.com> wrote:
> >> [..]
> >>>> Especially for architectures that use memblock info for numa info
> >>>> (which seems to be everyone except x86) why not implement a generic
> >>>> memory_add_physaddr_to_nid() that does:
> >>>>
> >>>> int memory_add_physaddr_to_nid(u64 addr)
> >>>> {
> >>>> unsigned long start_pfn, end_pfn, pfn = PHYS_PFN(addr);
> >>>> int nid;
> >>>>
> >>>> for_each_online_node(nid) {
> >>>> get_pfn_range_for_nid(nid, &start_pfn, &end_pfn);
> >>>> if (pfn >= start_pfn && pfn <= end_pfn)
> >>>> return nid;
> >>>> }
> >>>> return NUMA_NO_NODE;
> >>>> }
> >>>
> >>> Thanks for your suggestion,
> >>> Could I wrap the codes and let memory_add_physaddr_to_nid simply invoke
> >>> phys_to_target_node()?
> >>
> >> I think it needs to be the reverse. phys_to_target_node() should call
> >> memory_add_physaddr_to_nid() by default, but fall back to searching
> >> reserved memory address ranges in memblock. See phys_to_target_node()
> >> in arch/x86/mm/numa.c. That one uses numa_meminfo instead of memblock,
> >> but the principle is the same i.e. that a target node may not be
> >> represented in memblock.memory, but memblock.reserved. I'm working on
> >> a patch to provide a function similar to get_pfn_range_for_nid() that
> >> operates on reserved memory.
> >
> > Do we really need yet another memblock iterator?
> > I think only x86 has memory that is not in memblock.memory but only in
> > memblock.reserved.
>
> Reading about abusing the memblock allcoator once again in memory
> hotplug paths makes me shiver.
Technical reasoning please?
arm64 numa information is established from memblock data. It seems
counterproductive to ignore that fact if we're already touching
memory_add_physaddr_to_nid() and have a use case for a driver to call
it.
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@intel.com>
To: David Hildenbrand <david@redhat.com>
Cc: Mike Rapoport <rppt@linux.ibm.com>, Justin He <Justin.He@arm.com>,
Michal Hocko <mhocko@kernel.org>,
Catalin Marinas <Catalin.Marinas@arm.com>,
Will Deacon <will@kernel.org>,
Vishal Verma <vishal.l.verma@intel.com>,
Dave Jiang <dave.jiang@intel.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
Baoquan He <bhe@redhat.com>, Chuhong Yuan <hslester96@gmail.com>,
"linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org"
<linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org>,
"linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
"linux-mm@kvack.org" <linux-mm@kvack.org>,
"linux-nvdimm@lists.01.org" <linux-nvdimm@lists.01.org>,
Kaly Xin <Kaly.Xin@arm.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/3] arm64/numa: export memory_add_physaddr_to_nid as EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL
Date: Wed, 8 Jul 2020 00:04:06 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <CAPcyv4inaZgmv=S36_DofA9prKhWg4KBNPkTvzSALO6Vtb9ddw@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <c4ee0a94-c980-80ca-c43d-15729e1a3663@redhat.com>
On Tue, Jul 7, 2020 at 11:59 PM David Hildenbrand <david@redhat.com> wrote:
>
> On 08.07.20 08:22, Mike Rapoport wrote:
> > On Tue, Jul 07, 2020 at 09:27:43PM -0700, Dan Williams wrote:
> >> On Tue, Jul 7, 2020 at 9:08 PM Justin He <Justin.He@arm.com> wrote:
> >> [..]
> >>>> Especially for architectures that use memblock info for numa info
> >>>> (which seems to be everyone except x86) why not implement a generic
> >>>> memory_add_physaddr_to_nid() that does:
> >>>>
> >>>> int memory_add_physaddr_to_nid(u64 addr)
> >>>> {
> >>>> unsigned long start_pfn, end_pfn, pfn = PHYS_PFN(addr);
> >>>> int nid;
> >>>>
> >>>> for_each_online_node(nid) {
> >>>> get_pfn_range_for_nid(nid, &start_pfn, &end_pfn);
> >>>> if (pfn >= start_pfn && pfn <= end_pfn)
> >>>> return nid;
> >>>> }
> >>>> return NUMA_NO_NODE;
> >>>> }
> >>>
> >>> Thanks for your suggestion,
> >>> Could I wrap the codes and let memory_add_physaddr_to_nid simply invoke
> >>> phys_to_target_node()?
> >>
> >> I think it needs to be the reverse. phys_to_target_node() should call
> >> memory_add_physaddr_to_nid() by default, but fall back to searching
> >> reserved memory address ranges in memblock. See phys_to_target_node()
> >> in arch/x86/mm/numa.c. That one uses numa_meminfo instead of memblock,
> >> but the principle is the same i.e. that a target node may not be
> >> represented in memblock.memory, but memblock.reserved. I'm working on
> >> a patch to provide a function similar to get_pfn_range_for_nid() that
> >> operates on reserved memory.
> >
> > Do we really need yet another memblock iterator?
> > I think only x86 has memory that is not in memblock.memory but only in
> > memblock.reserved.
>
> Reading about abusing the memblock allcoator once again in memory
> hotplug paths makes me shiver.
Technical reasoning please?
arm64 numa information is established from memblock data. It seems
counterproductive to ignore that fact if we're already touching
memory_add_physaddr_to_nid() and have a use case for a driver to call
it.
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@intel.com>
To: David Hildenbrand <david@redhat.com>
Cc: Kaly Xin <Kaly.Xin@arm.com>, Justin He <Justin.He@arm.com>,
Baoquan He <bhe@redhat.com>,
"linux-nvdimm@lists.01.org" <linux-nvdimm@lists.01.org>,
Catalin Marinas <Catalin.Marinas@arm.com>,
Chuhong Yuan <hslester96@gmail.com>,
"linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
Michal Hocko <mhocko@kernel.org>,
"linux-mm@kvack.org" <linux-mm@kvack.org>,
Vishal Verma <vishal.l.verma@intel.com>,
Dave Jiang <dave.jiang@intel.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
Mike Rapoport <rppt@linux.ibm.com>, Will Deacon <will@kernel.org>,
"linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org"
<linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/3] arm64/numa: export memory_add_physaddr_to_nid as EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL
Date: Wed, 8 Jul 2020 00:04:06 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <CAPcyv4inaZgmv=S36_DofA9prKhWg4KBNPkTvzSALO6Vtb9ddw@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <c4ee0a94-c980-80ca-c43d-15729e1a3663@redhat.com>
On Tue, Jul 7, 2020 at 11:59 PM David Hildenbrand <david@redhat.com> wrote:
>
> On 08.07.20 08:22, Mike Rapoport wrote:
> > On Tue, Jul 07, 2020 at 09:27:43PM -0700, Dan Williams wrote:
> >> On Tue, Jul 7, 2020 at 9:08 PM Justin He <Justin.He@arm.com> wrote:
> >> [..]
> >>>> Especially for architectures that use memblock info for numa info
> >>>> (which seems to be everyone except x86) why not implement a generic
> >>>> memory_add_physaddr_to_nid() that does:
> >>>>
> >>>> int memory_add_physaddr_to_nid(u64 addr)
> >>>> {
> >>>> unsigned long start_pfn, end_pfn, pfn = PHYS_PFN(addr);
> >>>> int nid;
> >>>>
> >>>> for_each_online_node(nid) {
> >>>> get_pfn_range_for_nid(nid, &start_pfn, &end_pfn);
> >>>> if (pfn >= start_pfn && pfn <= end_pfn)
> >>>> return nid;
> >>>> }
> >>>> return NUMA_NO_NODE;
> >>>> }
> >>>
> >>> Thanks for your suggestion,
> >>> Could I wrap the codes and let memory_add_physaddr_to_nid simply invoke
> >>> phys_to_target_node()?
> >>
> >> I think it needs to be the reverse. phys_to_target_node() should call
> >> memory_add_physaddr_to_nid() by default, but fall back to searching
> >> reserved memory address ranges in memblock. See phys_to_target_node()
> >> in arch/x86/mm/numa.c. That one uses numa_meminfo instead of memblock,
> >> but the principle is the same i.e. that a target node may not be
> >> represented in memblock.memory, but memblock.reserved. I'm working on
> >> a patch to provide a function similar to get_pfn_range_for_nid() that
> >> operates on reserved memory.
> >
> > Do we really need yet another memblock iterator?
> > I think only x86 has memory that is not in memblock.memory but only in
> > memblock.reserved.
>
> Reading about abusing the memblock allcoator once again in memory
> hotplug paths makes me shiver.
Technical reasoning please?
arm64 numa information is established from memblock data. It seems
counterproductive to ignore that fact if we're already touching
memory_add_physaddr_to_nid() and have a use case for a driver to call
it.
_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2020-07-08 7:04 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 162+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2020-07-07 5:59 [PATCH v2 0/3] Fix and enable pmem as RAM device on arm64 Jia He
2020-07-07 5:59 ` Jia He
2020-07-07 5:59 ` Jia He
2020-07-07 5:59 ` [PATCH v2 1/3] arm64/numa: export memory_add_physaddr_to_nid as EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL Jia He
2020-07-07 5:59 ` Jia He
2020-07-07 5:59 ` Jia He
2020-07-07 11:35 ` David Hildenbrand
2020-07-07 11:35 ` David Hildenbrand
2020-07-07 11:35 ` David Hildenbrand
2020-07-07 11:54 ` Michal Hocko
2020-07-07 11:54 ` Michal Hocko
2020-07-07 11:54 ` Michal Hocko
2020-07-07 12:13 ` Mike Rapoport
2020-07-07 12:13 ` Mike Rapoport
2020-07-07 12:13 ` Mike Rapoport
2020-07-07 12:26 ` David Hildenbrand
2020-07-07 12:26 ` David Hildenbrand
2020-07-07 12:26 ` David Hildenbrand
2020-07-07 18:00 ` Mike Rapoport
2020-07-07 18:00 ` Mike Rapoport
2020-07-07 18:00 ` Mike Rapoport
2020-07-07 22:05 ` Dan Williams
2020-07-07 22:05 ` Dan Williams
2020-07-07 22:05 ` Dan Williams
2020-07-07 22:05 ` Dan Williams
2020-07-08 5:27 ` Mike Rapoport
2020-07-08 5:27 ` Mike Rapoport
2020-07-08 5:27 ` Mike Rapoport
2020-07-08 7:21 ` David Hildenbrand
2020-07-08 7:21 ` David Hildenbrand
2020-07-08 7:21 ` David Hildenbrand
2020-07-08 7:38 ` Mike Rapoport
2020-07-08 7:38 ` Mike Rapoport
2020-07-08 7:38 ` Mike Rapoport
2020-07-08 7:40 ` David Hildenbrand
2020-07-08 7:40 ` David Hildenbrand
2020-07-08 7:40 ` David Hildenbrand
2020-07-08 7:50 ` Dan Williams
2020-07-08 7:50 ` Dan Williams
2020-07-08 7:50 ` Dan Williams
2020-07-08 7:50 ` Dan Williams
2020-07-08 8:26 ` David Hildenbrand
2020-07-08 8:26 ` David Hildenbrand
2020-07-08 8:26 ` David Hildenbrand
2020-07-08 8:39 ` Mike Rapoport
2020-07-08 8:39 ` Mike Rapoport
2020-07-08 8:39 ` Mike Rapoport
2020-07-08 8:45 ` David Hildenbrand
2020-07-08 8:45 ` David Hildenbrand
2020-07-08 8:45 ` David Hildenbrand
2020-07-08 9:15 ` Mike Rapoport
2020-07-08 9:15 ` Mike Rapoport
2020-07-08 9:15 ` Mike Rapoport
2020-07-08 9:25 ` David Hildenbrand
2020-07-08 9:25 ` David Hildenbrand
2020-07-08 9:25 ` David Hildenbrand
2020-07-08 9:45 ` Mike Rapoport
2020-07-08 9:45 ` Mike Rapoport
2020-07-08 9:45 ` Mike Rapoport
2020-07-08 10:04 ` David Hildenbrand
2020-07-08 10:04 ` David Hildenbrand
2020-07-08 10:04 ` David Hildenbrand
2020-07-08 15:50 ` Dan Williams
2020-07-08 15:50 ` Dan Williams
2020-07-08 15:50 ` Dan Williams
2020-07-08 15:50 ` Dan Williams
2020-07-08 16:10 ` David Hildenbrand
2020-07-08 16:10 ` David Hildenbrand
2020-07-08 16:10 ` David Hildenbrand
2020-07-08 16:47 ` Mike Rapoport
2020-07-08 16:47 ` Mike Rapoport
2020-07-08 16:47 ` Mike Rapoport
2020-07-08 2:20 ` Justin He
2020-07-08 2:20 ` Justin He
2020-07-08 2:20 ` Justin He
2020-07-08 2:20 ` Justin He
2020-07-08 3:56 ` Dan Williams
2020-07-08 3:56 ` Dan Williams
2020-07-08 3:56 ` Dan Williams
2020-07-08 3:56 ` Dan Williams
2020-07-08 4:08 ` Justin He
2020-07-08 4:08 ` Justin He
2020-07-08 4:08 ` Justin He
2020-07-08 4:08 ` Justin He
2020-07-08 4:27 ` Dan Williams
2020-07-08 4:27 ` Dan Williams
2020-07-08 4:27 ` Dan Williams
2020-07-08 4:27 ` Dan Williams
2020-07-08 6:22 ` Mike Rapoport
2020-07-08 6:22 ` Mike Rapoport
2020-07-08 6:22 ` Mike Rapoport
2020-07-08 6:22 ` Mike Rapoport
2020-07-08 6:53 ` Dan Williams
2020-07-08 6:53 ` Dan Williams
2020-07-08 6:53 ` Dan Williams
2020-07-08 6:53 ` Dan Williams
2020-07-08 6:59 ` David Hildenbrand
2020-07-08 6:59 ` David Hildenbrand
2020-07-08 6:59 ` David Hildenbrand
2020-07-08 6:59 ` David Hildenbrand
2020-07-08 7:04 ` Dan Williams [this message]
2020-07-08 7:04 ` Dan Williams
2020-07-08 7:04 ` Dan Williams
2020-07-08 7:04 ` Dan Williams
2020-07-08 7:16 ` David Hildenbrand
2020-07-08 7:16 ` David Hildenbrand
2020-07-08 7:16 ` David Hildenbrand
2020-07-08 7:16 ` David Hildenbrand
2020-07-08 7:43 ` Mike Rapoport
2020-07-08 7:43 ` Mike Rapoport
2020-07-08 7:43 ` Mike Rapoport
2020-07-08 7:43 ` Mike Rapoport
2020-07-08 5:32 ` Mike Rapoport
2020-07-08 5:32 ` Mike Rapoport
2020-07-08 5:32 ` Mike Rapoport
2020-07-08 5:32 ` Mike Rapoport
2020-07-08 5:48 ` Dan Williams
2020-07-08 5:48 ` Dan Williams
2020-07-08 5:48 ` Dan Williams
2020-07-08 5:48 ` Dan Williams
2020-07-08 6:19 ` Mike Rapoport
2020-07-08 6:19 ` Mike Rapoport
2020-07-08 6:19 ` Mike Rapoport
2020-07-08 6:19 ` Mike Rapoport
2020-07-08 6:44 ` Dan Williams
2020-07-08 6:44 ` Dan Williams
2020-07-08 6:44 ` Dan Williams
2020-07-08 6:44 ` Dan Williams
2020-07-08 6:56 ` Justin He
2020-07-08 6:56 ` Justin He
2020-07-08 6:56 ` Justin He
2020-07-08 6:56 ` Justin He
2020-07-08 7:00 ` David Hildenbrand
2020-07-08 7:00 ` David Hildenbrand
2020-07-08 7:00 ` David Hildenbrand
2020-07-08 7:00 ` David Hildenbrand
2020-07-07 5:59 ` [RFC PATCH v2 2/3] device-dax: use fallback nid when numa_node is invalid Jia He
2020-07-07 5:59 ` Jia He
2020-07-07 5:59 ` Jia He
2020-07-07 6:08 ` Justin He
2020-07-07 6:08 ` Justin He
2020-07-07 6:08 ` Justin He
2020-07-07 6:08 ` Justin He
2020-07-07 11:34 ` David Hildenbrand
2020-07-07 11:34 ` David Hildenbrand
2020-07-07 11:34 ` David Hildenbrand
2020-07-08 1:41 ` Justin He
2020-07-08 1:41 ` Justin He
2020-07-08 1:41 ` Justin He
2020-07-08 1:41 ` Justin He
2020-07-07 13:53 ` kernel test robot
2020-07-08 7:07 ` kernel test robot
2020-07-07 5:59 ` [PATCH v2 3/3] mm/memory_hotplug: fix unpaired mem_hotplug_begin/done Jia He
2020-07-07 5:59 ` Jia He
2020-07-07 5:59 ` Jia He
2020-07-07 10:06 ` Michal Hocko
2020-07-07 10:06 ` Michal Hocko
2020-07-07 10:06 ` Michal Hocko
2020-07-07 11:31 ` David Hildenbrand
2020-07-07 11:31 ` David Hildenbrand
2020-07-07 11:31 ` David Hildenbrand
2020-07-10 14:02 ` Sasha Levin
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to='CAPcyv4inaZgmv=S36_DofA9prKhWg4KBNPkTvzSALO6Vtb9ddw@mail.gmail.com' \
--to=dan.j.williams@intel.com \
--cc=Catalin.Marinas@arm.com \
--cc=Justin.He@arm.com \
--cc=Kaly.Xin@arm.com \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=bhe@redhat.com \
--cc=david@redhat.com \
--cc=hslester96@gmail.com \
--cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
--cc=linux-nvdimm@lists.01.org \
--cc=mhocko@kernel.org \
--cc=rppt@linux.ibm.com \
--cc=will@kernel.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.