Re: [v6 07/15] mm: defining memblock_virt_alloc_try_nid_raw

[Pasha Tatashin]

> > Sure, I could do this, but as I understood from earlier Dave Miller's
> > comments, we should do one logical change at a time. Hence, introduce API in
> > one patch use it in another. So, this is how I tried to organize this patch
> > set. Is this assumption incorrect?
>
> Well, it really depends. If the patch is really small then adding a new
> API along with users is easier to review and backport because you have a
> clear view of the usage. I believe this is the case here. But if others
> feel otherwise I will not object.

I will merge them.

Thank you,
Pasha