From: Borislav Petkov <bp@suse.de>
To: Baoquan He <bhe@redhat.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, akpm@linux-foundation.org,
robh+dt@kernel.org, dan.j.williams@intel.com,
nicolas.pitre@linaro.org, josh@joshtriplett.org,
"Thomas Gleixner" <tglx@linutronix.de>,
"Brijesh Singh" <brijesh.singh@amd.com>,
"Jérôme Glisse" <jglisse@redhat.com>,
"Tom Lendacky" <thomas.lendacky@amd.com>,
"Wei Yang" <richard.weiyang@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 2/3] resource: add walk_system_ram_res_rev()
Date: Fri, 4 May 2018 12:16:31 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20180504101631.GB9377@pd.tnic> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20180426132204.GF19030@localhost.localdomain>
On Thu, Apr 26, 2018 at 09:22:04PM +0800, Baoquan He wrote:
> I noticed maintainers merged patches with this Message-ID, could you
> tell how to get this Message-ID?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Message-ID
> This is not a thing that one is top down, the other is bottom up. For
> us, they might be so different on details of code, for customers, they
> just think them as a same thing. They may say I just get a new machine,
> and still do kexec loading, why these top-down, bottom-up things come
> up.
So if I read the above correctly, it doesn't matter whether top-down or
bottom-up.
> And this is not causing code churn. You can see that by replacing
> pointer operation with list_head, code in kernel/resource.c related to
> child list iteration is much easier to read,
Now *this* is starting to sound like some reason "why". If it is better
readability, then say so in the commit message.
It still doesn't justify adding walk_system_ram_res_rev() though.
--
Regards/Gruss,
Boris.
SUSE Linux GmbH, GF: Felix Imendörffer, Jane Smithard, Graham Norton, HRB 21284 (AG Nürnberg)
--
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2018-05-04 10:16 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 19+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2018-04-19 0:18 [PATCH v3 0/3] resource: Use list_head to link sibling resource Baoquan He
2018-04-19 0:18 ` [PATCH v3 1/3] " Baoquan He
2018-04-26 1:18 ` Wei Yang
2018-05-07 1:14 ` Baoquan He
2018-05-08 11:48 ` Wei Yang
2018-05-08 12:11 ` Baoquan He
2018-05-08 23:41 ` Wei Yang
2018-04-26 3:01 ` kbuild test robot
2018-05-06 6:31 ` Baoquan He
2018-04-26 3:23 ` kbuild test robot
2018-05-06 6:30 ` Baoquan He
2018-04-19 0:18 ` [PATCH v3 2/3] resource: add walk_system_ram_res_rev() Baoquan He
2018-04-19 10:07 ` Borislav Petkov
2018-04-26 8:56 ` Baoquan He
2018-04-26 11:09 ` Borislav Petkov
2018-04-26 13:22 ` Baoquan He
2018-05-04 10:16 ` Borislav Petkov [this message]
2018-05-06 6:19 ` Baoquan He
2018-04-19 0:18 ` [PATCH v3 3/3] kexec_file: Load kernel at top of system RAM if required Baoquan He
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=20180504101631.GB9377@pd.tnic \
--to=bp@suse.de \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=bhe@redhat.com \
--cc=brijesh.singh@amd.com \
--cc=dan.j.williams@intel.com \
--cc=jglisse@redhat.com \
--cc=josh@joshtriplett.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=nicolas.pitre@linaro.org \
--cc=richard.weiyang@gmail.com \
--cc=robh+dt@kernel.org \
--cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
--cc=thomas.lendacky@amd.com \
/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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).