From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1161820AbcBQTCd (ORCPT ); Wed, 17 Feb 2016 14:02:33 -0500 Received: from mail.linuxfoundation.org ([140.211.169.12]:42561 "EHLO mail.linuxfoundation.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1030388AbcBQTCc (ORCPT ); Wed, 17 Feb 2016 14:02:32 -0500 Date: Wed, 17 Feb 2016 11:02:31 -0800 From: Andrew Morton To: Brian Starkey Cc: Greg Kroah-Hartman , Catalin Marinas , Dan Williams , linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [RESEND2 PATCH 1/3] memremap: add MEMREMAP_WC flag Message-Id: <20160217110231.d4040207cc1456bd991ff0e7@linux-foundation.org> In-Reply-To: <20160217115347.GA28433@e106950-lin.cambridge.arm.com> References: <9085d37fa97a762a46b9d58719c085368682c64f.1454950917.git.brian.starkey@arm.com> <20160208120317.313409dc0ae7634c25d3f021@linux-foundation.org> <20160209102300.GB23507@e106950-lin.cambridge.arm.com> <20160217115347.GA28433@e106950-lin.cambridge.arm.com> X-Mailer: Sylpheed 3.4.1 (GTK+ 2.24.23; x86_64-pc-linux-gnu) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Wed, 17 Feb 2016 11:53:48 +0000 Brian Starkey wrote: > Hi Andrew, > > Would you pick these up if I rebase onto linux-next? Sure. > How strongly do you feel about the input argument modification vs. > staying in-line with the rest of the function? I see no reason why memremap() is modifying `flags' as it proceeds - these flags are all disjoint so it's pointless. I suggest you simply take all that out in a preparatory patch. From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: akpm@linux-foundation.org (Andrew Morton) Date: Wed, 17 Feb 2016 11:02:31 -0800 Subject: [RESEND2 PATCH 1/3] memremap: add MEMREMAP_WC flag In-Reply-To: <20160217115347.GA28433@e106950-lin.cambridge.arm.com> References: <9085d37fa97a762a46b9d58719c085368682c64f.1454950917.git.brian.starkey@arm.com> <20160208120317.313409dc0ae7634c25d3f021@linux-foundation.org> <20160209102300.GB23507@e106950-lin.cambridge.arm.com> <20160217115347.GA28433@e106950-lin.cambridge.arm.com> Message-ID: <20160217110231.d4040207cc1456bd991ff0e7@linux-foundation.org> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org On Wed, 17 Feb 2016 11:53:48 +0000 Brian Starkey wrote: > Hi Andrew, > > Would you pick these up if I rebase onto linux-next? Sure. > How strongly do you feel about the input argument modification vs. > staying in-line with the rest of the function? I see no reason why memremap() is modifying `flags' as it proceeds - these flags are all disjoint so it's pointless. I suggest you simply take all that out in a preparatory patch.