Re: update kernel-doc for MEMBLOCK_RSRV_NOINIT (was: Re: [PATCH RFC 10/35] mm/hugetlb: cleanup hugetlb_folio_init_tail_vmemmap())
| Newsgroups | com.zx2c4.lists.wireguard,dev.linux.lists.iommu,dev.linux.lists.virtualization,org.freedesktop.lists.dri-devel,org.freedesktop.lists.intel-gfx,org.infradead.lists.linux-arm-kernel,org.infradead.lists.linux-riscv,org.kernel.vger.io-uring,org.kernel.vger.kvm,org.kernel.vger.linux-crypto,org.kernel.vger.linux-ide,org.kernel.vger.linux-kernel,org.kernel.vger.linux-kselftest,org.kernel.vger.linux-mips,org.kernel.vger.linux-mmc,org.kernel.vger.linux-s390,org.kernel.vger.linux-scsi,org.kernel.vger.netdev,org.kvack.linux-mm |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <175997202925.3661959.5694356441030280085.git-patchwork-notify@kernel.org> |
Hello: This patch was applied to riscv/linux.git (for-next) by Mike Rapoport (Microsoft) <[email protected]>: On Mon, 25 Aug 2025 19:58:10 +0300 you wrote: > On Mon, Aug 25, 2025 at 06:23:48PM +0200, David Hildenbrand wrote: > > > > I don't quite understand the interaction with PG_Reserved and why anybody > > using this function should care. > > > > So maybe you can rephrase in a way that is easier to digest, and rather > > focuses on what callers of this function are supposed to do vs. have the > > liberty of not doing? > > [...] Here is the summary with links: - update kernel-doc for MEMBLOCK_RSRV_NOINIT (was: Re: [PATCH RFC 10/35] mm/hugetlb: cleanup hugetlb_folio_init_tail_vmemmap()) https://git.kernel.org/riscv/c/b3dcc9d1d806 You are awesome, thank you! -- Deet-doot-dot, I am a bot. https://korg.docs.kernel.org/patchwork/pwbot.html