Hello Mike,
I haven't read your patch text yet. I am waiting for the subsystem
maintainers response at least
about the necessity to have this type of changes being merged into the
sources (I mean
memblock/no-bootmem alteration). If they find it pointless (although I
would strongly disagree), then
nothing to discuss. Otherwise we can come up with a solution.

-Sergey


On Thu, Aug 2, 2018 at 2:56 PM Mike Rapoport <rppt@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
wrote:

> Hi,
>
> On Thu, Jul 26, 2018 at 10:55:53PM +0300, Fancer's opinion wrote:
> > Hello, folks
> > Regarding the no_bootmem patchset I've sent earlier.
> > I'm terribly sorry about huge delay with response. I got sucked in a new
> > project, so just didn't have a time to proceed with the series, answer
> to the
> > questions and resend the set.
> > If it is still relevant and needed for community, I can get back to the
> series
> > on the next week, answer to the Mett's questions (sorry, man, for doing
> it so
> > long), rebase it on top of the kernel 4.18 and resend the new version.
> We also
> > can try to combine it with this patch, if it is found convenient.
>
> So, what would be the best way to move forward?
>
> > Regards,
> > -Sergey
> >
> >
> > On Thu, 26 Jul 2018, 20:20 Paul Burton, <paul.burton@mips.com> wrote:
> >
> >     Hi Mike,
> >
> >     On Thu, Jul 26, 2018 at 10:03:56AM +0300, Mike Rapoport wrote:
> >     > Any comments on this?
> >
> >     I haven't looked at this in detail yet, but there was a much larger
> >     series submitted to accomplish this not too long ago, which needed
> >     another revision:
> >
> >
> https://patchwork.linux-mips.org/project/linux-mips/list/?series=787&
> >     state=*
> >
> >     Given that, I'd be (pleasantly) surprised if this one smaller patch
> is
> >     enough.
> >
> >     Thanks,
> >         Paul
> >
>
> --
> Sincerely yours,
> Mike.
>
>