| Message ID | 20180328203659.18692-15-shea@shealevy.com (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| State | Not Applicable |
| Headers | show |
| Series | None | expand |
On Wed, 2018-03-28 at 16:36 -0400, Shea Levy wrote:
> Signed-off-by: Shea Levy <shea@shealevy.com>
Most people seem to want some form of commit message
and not just your sign-off.
And btw:
It seems you used get_maintainer to determine who to
send these patches to.
I suggest you add --nogit and --nogit-fallback to the
get_maintainer command line you use to avoid sending
these patches to people like me that have done drive-by
cleanup work on these files.
Joe Perches <joe@perches.com> writes: > On Wed, 2018-03-28 at 16:36 -0400, Shea Levy wrote: >> Signed-off-by: Shea Levy <shea@shealevy.com> > > Most people seem to want some form of commit message > and not just your sign-off. > Ah, if the subject is insufficient I can add some more detail. > > And btw: > > It seems you used get_maintainer to determine who to > send these patches to. > > I suggest you add --nogit and --nogit-fallback to the > get_maintainer command line you use to avoid sending > these patches to people like me that have done drive-by > cleanup work on these files. Whoops, thanks for the tip and sorry for the noise!
Shea Levy <shea@shealevy.com> writes: > Joe Perches <joe@perches.com> writes: > >> On Wed, 2018-03-28 at 16:36 -0400, Shea Levy wrote: >>> Signed-off-by: Shea Levy <shea@shealevy.com> >> >> Most people seem to want some form of commit message >> and not just your sign-off. >> > > Ah, if the subject is insufficient I can add some more detail. Yeah please do. Seeing this patch in isolation, with no change log, I might think it's safe for me to just apply it. But that would break the build because I don't have patch 1. So for starters you need to explain that part, eg something like: A previous patch in the series added a weak definition of free_initrd_mem() in init/initramfs.c. The powerpc implementation is identical, so it can be removed allowing the generic version to be used. Then you could also tell me if you did/didn't build/boot test it. cheers
Hi Michael, Michael Ellerman <mpe@ellerman.id.au> writes: > Shea Levy <shea@shealevy.com> writes: > >> Joe Perches <joe@perches.com> writes: >> >>> On Wed, 2018-03-28 at 16:36 -0400, Shea Levy wrote: >>>> Signed-off-by: Shea Levy <shea@shealevy.com> >>> >>> Most people seem to want some form of commit message >>> and not just your sign-off. >>> >> >> Ah, if the subject is insufficient I can add some more detail. > > Yeah please do. > > Seeing this patch in isolation, with no change log, I might think it's > safe for me to just apply it. > > But that would break the build because I don't have patch 1. > > So for starters you need to explain that part, eg something like: > > A previous patch in the series added a weak definition of > free_initrd_mem() in init/initramfs.c. > > The powerpc implementation is identical, so it can be removed allowing > the generic version to be used. > > > Then you could also tell me if you did/didn't build/boot test it. Thanks for the feedback, can you let me know if the recently posted v6 fits the bill? > > cheers Thanks, Shea
diff --git a/arch/powerpc/mm/mem.c b/arch/powerpc/mm/mem.c index fe8c61149fb8..e85b2a3cd264 100644 --- a/arch/powerpc/mm/mem.c +++ b/arch/powerpc/mm/mem.c @@ -404,13 +404,6 @@ void free_initmem(void) free_initmem_default(POISON_FREE_INITMEM); } -#ifdef CONFIG_BLK_DEV_INITRD -void __init free_initrd_mem(unsigned long start, unsigned long end) -{ - free_reserved_area((void *)start, (void *)end, -1, "initrd"); -} -#endif - /* * This is called when a page has been modified by the kernel. * It just marks the page as not i-cache clean. We do the i-cache
Signed-off-by: Shea Levy <shea@shealevy.com> --- arch/powerpc/mm/mem.c | 7 ------- 1 file changed, 7 deletions(-)