[U-Boot] [PATCHWORK] 71715 -> Not applicable.

[U-Boot] [PATCHWORK] 71715 -> Not applicable.

[Albert ARIBAUD]

Yay, my first todo in patchwork! :)

<http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/71715/>

It was discussed there:

<http://www.mail-archive.com/u-boot@lists.denx.de/msg28003.html>

AIUI, the discussion was about asm-generic/unaligned.h rather than about 
the patch itself. Personally I think that the patch could have been 
applied, and *then* asm-generic/unaligned.h could have been brought in 
sync with its Linux counterpart.

Anyway this patch requires a rebase now as the whole arch organization 
has moved around. Ergo: not applicable; if the patch is needed, I'd like 
it to be resubmitted based on current master.

Note: I am posting this to the list because we're only starting using 
patchwork, so maybe we should share our experience for the moment; I 
don't know yet what patchwork action is worthy of a post on the list and 
what is not. For all I know, maybe patchwork itself is going to post 
something right after I set the "not applicable" status...

In any case, *do not* blindly take this message as the Right Way To Do 
Things With Patchwork! I don't want to start a wrong habit.

Amicalement,
-- 
Albert.

[U-Boot] [PATCHWORK] 71715 -> Not applicable.

[Wolfgang Denk]

Dear Albert ARIBAUD,

In message <4CE59B4E.90804@free.fr> you wrote:
> 
> Note: I am posting this to the list because we're only starting using 
> patchwork, so maybe we should share our experience for the moment; I 
> don't know yet what patchwork action is worthy of a post on the list and 
> what is not. For all I know, maybe patchwork itself is going to post 
> something right after I set the "not applicable" status...

No, I don't think so. Patchwork does not send any e-mails by itself.
When you change the state to "Changes Required" or "Not Applicable" or
such you are supposed to post a followup on the mailinglist and inform
the submitter of your action.  Patchwork does not replace the mailing
list, it just helps keeping an overview over the patches, and who is
doing what.

Best regards,

Wolfgang Denk

-- 
DENX Software Engineering GmbH,     MD: Wolfgang Denk & Detlev Zundel
HRB 165235 Munich, Office: Kirchenstr.5, D-82194 Groebenzell, Germany
Phone: (+49)-8142-66989-10 Fax: (+49)-8142-66989-80 Email: wd at denx.de
Overdrawn?  But I still have checks left!

[U-Boot] [PATCHWORK] 71715 -> Not applicable.

[Mike Frysinger]

On Thursday, November 18, 2010 16:31:58 Albert ARIBAUD wrote:
> Yay, my first todo in patchwork! :)
> 
> <http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/71715/>
> 
> It was discussed there:
> 
> <http://www.mail-archive.com/u-boot@lists.denx.de/msg28003.html>
> 
> AIUI, the discussion was about asm-generic/unaligned.h rather than about
> the patch itself. Personally I think that the patch could have been
> applied, and *then* asm-generic/unaligned.h could have been brought in
> sync with its Linux counterpart.
> 
> Anyway this patch requires a rebase now as the whole arch organization
> has moved around. Ergo: not applicable; if the patch is needed, I'd like
> it to be resubmitted based on current master.

it's trivial to rebase the patch yourself.  you're the arm maintainer, and 
this patch is for the core arm.
-mike
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 836 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part.
Url : http://lists.denx.de/pipermail/u-boot/attachments/20101118/da62b7c0/attachment.pgp 

[U-Boot] [PATCHWORK] 71715 -> Not applicable.

[Albert ARIBAUD]

Le 18/11/2010 23:00, Mike Frysinger a ?crit :

>> Anyway this patch requires a rebase now as the whole arch organization
>> has moved around. Ergo: not applicable; if the patch is needed, I'd like
>> it to be resubmitted based on current master.
>
> it's trivial to rebase the patch yourself.  you're the arm maintainer, and
> this patch is for the core arm.
> -mike

Yes, it is trivial, and yes, I am the arm maintainer (well, technically 
not until the next release is out), and as the arm maintainer I see 
patch which has been left dormant since january without adverse effects 
and without a ping (at least, none that I could see), which makes me 
wonder how strongly it is really wished for; a resubmit will be a sign 
that it is.

Besides, about half the archs do not use asm-generic/unaligned, and half 
do; a resubmit on the list will be the occasion, for example, to discuss 
whether all arches should use it.

Amicalement,
-- 
Albert.

[U-Boot] [PATCHWORK] 71715 -> Not applicable.

[Mike Frysinger]

On Thursday, November 18, 2010 17:21:49 Albert ARIBAUD wrote:
> Besides, about half the archs do not use asm-generic/unaligned, and half
> do

that's because half the arches implemented unaligned.h whilst only thinking of 
themselves.  the other half benefited from my work of thinking of everyone.

> a resubmit on the list will be the occasion

i dont use/care about arm.  i wrote the patch because i wanted to be nice.  if 
you cant be bothered to clean up arm cruft, then feel free to mark the patch 
as "pending due to maintainer laziness".

> for example, to discuss whether all arches should use it.

all arches should use it.  whether the maintainers can be bothered to fix 
their headers is a different question.
-mike
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 836 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part.
Url : http://lists.denx.de/pipermail/u-boot/attachments/20101118/d196d3f7/attachment.pgp 

[U-Boot] [PATCHWORK] 71715 -> Not applicable.

[Albert ARIBAUD]

Le 19/11/2010 00:13, Mike Frysinger a ?crit :
> On Thursday, November 18, 2010 17:21:49 Albert ARIBAUD wrote:
>> Besides, about half the archs do not use asm-generic/unaligned, and half
>> do
>
> that's because half the arches implemented unaligned.h whilst only thinking of
> themselves.  the other half benefited from my work of thinking of everyone.
>
>> a resubmit on the list will be the occasion
>
> i dont use/care about arm.  i wrote the patch because i wanted to be nice.  if
> you cant be bothered to clean up arm cruft, then feel free to mark the patch
> as "pending due to maintainer laziness".
>
>> for example, to discuss whether all arches should use it.
>
> all arches should use it.  whether the maintainers can be bothered to fix
> their headers is a different question.
> -mike

My question was about the technical merits of the patch: why should all 
arches use it? What does it improve at a performance, maintenability, or 
other technical level ?

Amicalement,
-- 
Albert.

[U-Boot] [PATCHWORK] 71715 -> Not applicable.

[Mike Frysinger]

On Friday, November 19, 2010 00:59:47 Albert ARIBAUD wrote:
> Le 19/11/2010 00:13, Mike Frysinger a ?crit :
> > On Thursday, November 18, 2010 17:21:49 Albert ARIBAUD wrote:
> >> Besides, about half the archs do not use asm-generic/unaligned, and half
> >> do
> > 
> > that's because half the arches implemented unaligned.h whilst only
> > thinking of themselves.  the other half benefited from my work of
> > thinking of everyone.
> > 
> >> a resubmit on the list will be the occasion
> > 
> > i dont use/care about arm.  i wrote the patch because i wanted to be
> > nice.  if you cant be bothered to clean up arm cruft, then feel free to
> > mark the patch as "pending due to maintainer laziness".
> > 
> >> for example, to discuss whether all arches should use it.
> > 
> > all arches should use it.  whether the maintainers can be bothered to fix
> > their headers is a different question.
> 
> My question was about the technical merits of the patch: why should all
> arches use it? What does it improve at a performance, maintenability, or
> other technical level ?

obviously maintenance is improved since only one header needs to be maintained 
and it isnt an arm one
-mike
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 836 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part.
Url : http://lists.denx.de/pipermail/u-boot/attachments/20101119/9c6b683a/attachment.pgp 

[U-Boot] [PATCHWORK] 71715 -> Not applicable.

[Albert ARIBAUD]

Le 19/11/2010 08:13, Mike Frysinger a ?crit :
> On Friday, November 19, 2010 00:59:47 Albert ARIBAUD wrote:
>> Le 19/11/2010 00:13, Mike Frysinger a ?crit :
>>> On Thursday, November 18, 2010 17:21:49 Albert ARIBAUD wrote:
>>>> Besides, about half the archs do not use asm-generic/unaligned, and half
>>>> do
>>>
>>> that's because half the arches implemented unaligned.h whilst only
>>> thinking of themselves.  the other half benefited from my work of
>>> thinking of everyone.
>>>
>>>> a resubmit on the list will be the occasion
>>>
>>> i dont use/care about arm.  i wrote the patch because i wanted to be
>>> nice.  if you cant be bothered to clean up arm cruft, then feel free to
>>> mark the patch as "pending due to maintainer laziness".
>>>
>>>> for example, to discuss whether all arches should use it.
>>>
>>> all arches should use it.  whether the maintainers can be bothered to fix
>>> their headers is a different question.
>>
>> My question was about the technical merits of the patch: why should all
>> arches use it? What does it improve at a performance, maintenability, or
>> other technical level ?
>
> obviously maintenance is improved since only one header needs to be maintained
> and it isnt an arm one
> -mike

Maintenance being about changes, I did a git log on both 
include/asm-generic/unaligned.h and arch/arm/include/asm/unaligned.h. 
Each has exactly one commit: the generic one when creating the file, the 
arm one when the directories were rearranged. Very little changes either 
way.

I do understand the benefit in overall maintenability of having a common 
situation for all archs. But I don't think there is an increase of 
maintenability per se in, basically, adding a level of #include.

If the goal is 'have all arches use a single unaligned.h' --  then fine, 
let us *remove* the unaligned.h files in arches and refer to the generic 
one instead. That, indeed, would increase maintenability by *reducing* 
the number of files while *not* adding any complexity. I'll happily ack 
such a change.

In any case, this is not specifically an 'arm' topic: it touches all 
arches albeit lightly -- as you point out, Mike, this is a generic 
change. So I'd rather see a patchset to fix this globally and for good 
for every arch.

Amicalement,
-- 
Albert.

[U-Boot] [PATCHWORK] 71715 -> Not applicable.

[Mike Frysinger]

On Friday, November 19, 2010 05:50:20 Albert ARIBAUD wrote:
> If the goal is 'have all arches use a single unaligned.h' --  then fine,
> let us *remove* the unaligned.h files in arches and refer to the generic
> one instead. That, indeed, would increase maintenability by *reducing*
> the number of files while *not* adding any complexity. I'll happily ack
> such a change.

that really isnt going to happen.  files expect asm/foo.h.  just like Linux.

> In any case, this is not specifically an 'arm' topic: it touches all
> arches albeit lightly -- as you point out, Mike, this is a generic
> change. So I'd rather see a patchset to fix this globally and for good
> for every arch.

i have 0 incentive or desire to fix other arches.  so that isnt going to 
happen by me either.
-mike
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 836 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part.
Url : http://lists.denx.de/pipermail/u-boot/attachments/20101119/213fbf81/attachment.pgp 

[U-Boot] [PATCHWORK] 71715 -> Not applicable.

[Albert ARIBAUD]

Le 19/11/2010 11:51, Mike Frysinger a ?crit :
> On Friday, November 19, 2010 05:50:20 Albert ARIBAUD wrote:
>> If the goal is 'have all arches use a single unaligned.h' --  then fine,
>> let us *remove* the unaligned.h files in arches and refer to the generic
>> one instead. That, indeed, would increase maintenability by *reducing*
>> the number of files while *not* adding any complexity. I'll happily ack
>> such a change.
>
> that really isnt going to happen.  files expect asm/foo.h.  just like Linux.

Then why not symlinks?

>> In any case, this is not specifically an 'arm' topic: it touches all
>> arches albeit lightly -- as you point out, Mike, this is a generic
>> change. So I'd rather see a patchset to fix this globally and for good
>> for every arch.
>
> i have 0 incentive or desire to fix other arches.  so that isnt going to
> happen by me either.
> -mike

If no one -- including the submitter -- expresses an incentive for this 
change, it most probably means it is not needed. I shall thus drop this 
patch; if anyone else feels it is needed, they can simply submit an 
up-to-date patch on the list.

Amicalement,
-- 
Albert.

[U-Boot] [PATCHWORK] 71715 -> Not applicable.

[Mike Frysinger]

On Friday, November 19, 2010 06:56:38 Albert ARIBAUD wrote:
> Le 19/11/2010 11:51, Mike Frysinger a ?crit :
> > On Friday, November 19, 2010 05:50:20 Albert ARIBAUD wrote:
> >> If the goal is 'have all arches use a single unaligned.h' --  then fine,
> >> let us *remove* the unaligned.h files in arches and refer to the generic
> >> one instead. That, indeed, would increase maintenability by *reducing*
> >> the number of files while *not* adding any complexity. I'll happily ack
> >> such a change.
> > 
> > that really isnt going to happen.  files expect asm/foo.h.  just like
> > Linux.
> 
> Then why not symlinks?

both build systems have actively moved away from symlinks.  they turn out to 
be way too problematic in practice.
-mike
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 836 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part.
Url : http://lists.denx.de/pipermail/u-boot/attachments/20101120/12cc0b81/attachment.pgp