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:   Mon, 15 May 2023 11:49:55 +0200
From:   Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de>
To:     Yajun Deng <yajun.deng@linux.dev>
Cc:     corbet@lwn.net, catalin.marinas@arm.com, will@kernel.org,
        hch@lst.de, m.szyprowski@samsung.com, robin.murphy@arm.com,
        paulmck@kernel.org, bp@suse.de, akpm@linux-foundation.org,
        peterz@infradead.org, rdunlap@infradead.org, kim.phillips@amd.com,
        rostedt@goodmis.org, thunder.leizhen@huawei.com, ardb@kernel.org,
        bhe@redhat.com, anshuman.khandual@arm.com,
        song.bao.hua@hisilicon.com, linux-doc@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org,
        iommu@lists.linux.dev
Subject: Re: [PATCH] dma-contiguous: support per-numa CMA for all
 architectures
Message-ID: <20230515094955.GB23880@lst.de>
References: <20230512094210.141540-1-yajun.deng@linux.dev>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20230512094210.141540-1-yajun.deng@linux.dev>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.17 (2007-11-01)
Precedence: bulk

This looks fine to me.  Can you please work with Barry to make sure
the slight different place of the initcall doesn't break anything
for his setup?  I doubt it would, but I'd rather have a Tested-by:
tag.