From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751916AbdF3AYy (ORCPT ); Thu, 29 Jun 2017 20:24:54 -0400 Received: from mx0b-001b2d01.pphosted.com ([148.163.158.5]:46228 "EHLO mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751683AbdF3AYv (ORCPT ); Thu, 29 Jun 2017 20:24:51 -0400 Date: Thu, 29 Jun 2017 17:24:46 -0700 From: "Paul E. McKenney" To: Linus Torvalds Cc: Linux Kernel Mailing List , NetFilter , Network Development , Oleg Nesterov , Andrew Morton , Ingo Molnar , Davidlohr Bueso , Manfred Spraul , Tejun Heo , Arnd Bergmann , "linux-arch@vger.kernel.org" , Will Deacon , Peter Zijlstra , Alan Stern , Andrea Parri , Chris Metcalf Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC 25/26] tile: Remove spin_unlock_wait() arch-specific definitions Reply-To: paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com References: <20170629235918.GA6445@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <1498780894-8253-25-git-send-email-paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) X-TM-AS-GCONF: 00 x-cbid: 17063000-0008-0000-0000-00000251CFFD X-IBM-SpamModules-Scores: X-IBM-SpamModules-Versions: BY=3.00007295; HX=3.00000241; KW=3.00000007; PH=3.00000004; SC=3.00000214; SDB=6.00880612; UDB=6.00439015; IPR=6.00660766; BA=6.00005447; NDR=6.00000001; ZLA=6.00000005; ZF=6.00000009; ZB=6.00000000; ZP=6.00000000; ZH=6.00000000; ZU=6.00000002; MB=3.00016015; XFM=3.00000015; UTC=2017-06-30 00:24:49 X-IBM-AV-DETECTION: SAVI=unused REMOTE=unused XFE=unused x-cbparentid: 17063000-0009-0000-0000-000035DB27EF Message-Id: <20170630002446.GM2393@linux.vnet.ibm.com> X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=2.50.10432:,, definitions=2017-06-29_17:,, signatures=0 X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=outbound_notspam policy=outbound score=0 spamscore=0 suspectscore=0 malwarescore=0 phishscore=0 adultscore=0 bulkscore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=8.0.1-1703280000 definitions=main-1706300004 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Thu, Jun 29, 2017 at 05:10:41PM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote: > On Thu, Jun 29, 2017 at 5:06 PM, Linus Torvalds > wrote: > > > > Please don't make this one commit fopr every architecture. > > > > Once something gets removed, it gets removed. There's no point in > > "remove it from architecture X". If there are no more users, we're > > done with it, and making it be 25 patches with the same commit message > > instead of just one doesn't help anybody. > > Just to clarify: I think the actual *users* are worth doing one by > one, particularly if there are user-specific explanations of what that > particular code wanted, and why spin_unlock_wait() doesn't really > help. Got it, and I did merge -only- the arch-specific definition removals into one commit. Should I also merge the core-code definition removals into that same commit, or is it OK to remove the core-code definitions with one commit and the arch-specific definitions with another. (My guess is that you would prefer I removed -all- definitions with one commit, including the core-kernel definitions, but at this point I figure I should just ask.) > And I think that you actually have those per-user insights by now, > after looking at the long thread. One Acked-by thus far, so some progress! > So I'm not saying "do one patch for the whole series". One patch per > removal of use is fine - in fact preferred. Got it. It allows the developers and maintainers to tell me where my analysis is wrong, for one thing. ;-) > But once there are no actual more users, just remove all the > architecture definitions in one go, because explaining the same thing > several times doesn't actually help anything. > > In fact, *if* we end up ever resurrecting that thing, it's good if we > can resurrect it in one go. Then we can resurrect the one or two users > that turned out to matter after all and could come up with why some > particular ordering was ok too. Understood! Thanx, Paul