Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
Date:   Wed, 22 Jun 2022 23:38:35 -0500
From:   Mike Rapoport <rppt@kernel.org>
To:     Rebecca Mckeever <remckee0@gmail.com>
Cc:     Ira Weiny <ira.weiny@intel.com>, linux-mm@kvack.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, David Hildenbrand <david@redhat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 0/4] memblock tests: add VERBOSE and MEMBLOCK_DEBUG
 Makefile options
Message-ID: <YrPuSxlRrIn9kowB@kernel.org>
References: <cover.1655889641.git.remckee0@gmail.com>
 <YrPeXOgEQq7G4Ctq@iweiny-desk3>
 <YrPp+xMGZ/n1TpTk@bertie>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <YrPp+xMGZ/n1TpTk@bertie>
Precedence: bulk

On Wed, Jun 22, 2022 at 11:20:11PM -0500, Rebecca Mckeever wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 22, 2022 at 08:30:36PM -0700, Ira Weiny wrote:
> > On Wed, Jun 22, 2022 at 04:29:05AM -0500, Rebecca Mckeever wrote:
> > > These patches add options VERBOSE and MEMBLOCK_DEBUG to Memblock
> > > simulator, which can be specified when running make. These patches also
> > > implement the functionality for these options.
> > 
> > I seem to be missing patch 3/4 and I don't see it on lore?
> > 
> > https://lore.kernel.org/linux-mm/004e021cc3cb7be8749361b3b1cb324459b9cb9f.1655889641.git.remckee0@gmail.com/
> > 
> > Did it get sent?  Did it define the ASSERT_*() macros?

I see it on lore in both linux-mm and linux-kernel, and here as well:
 
https://lore.kernel.org/all/39c5c97d2b5c1ab88b7bbbf02633f840fd5dfcdf.1655889641.git.remckee0@gmail.com/

> That's strange, my email shows that it was sent to linux-mm@kvack.org and
> linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org but I'm not seeing it on lore either.
> Should I resend just patch 3/4?

No need to resend.

> For now, you can take a look at v1.  Patch 3 is unchanged from v1, which
> is showing up on lore:
> 
> https://lore.kernel.org/linux-mm/fe34452209f54287023ccacd666eade81ecd9a24.1655878337.git.remckee0@gmail.com/T/#u
> 
> It does not define the ASSERT_*() macros, that happens in patch 2.
> Patch 3 implements MEMBLOCK_DEBUG.
> 
> Thanks,
> Rebecca
> 

-- 
Sincerely yours,
Mike.