Re: [PATCH 0/3] COVER: Remove memcpy_page_flushcache()

From: Ira Weiny <ira.weiny@intel.com>
To: Michael Ellerman <mpe@ellerman.id.au>,
	Ira Weiny <ira.weiny@intel.com>,
	Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@intel.com>,
	Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@linux.intel.com>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
	Nicholas Piggin <npiggin@gmail.com>,
	Christophe Leroy <christophe.leroy@csgroup.eu>,
	Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>,
	Will Deacon <will@kernel.org>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>,
	"Borislav Petkov" <bp@alien8.de>, <x86@kernel.org>,
	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>
Cc: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Al Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>,
	Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@intel.com>,
	linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org,
	Konstantin Ryabitsev <konstantin@linuxfoundation.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/3] COVER: Remove memcpy_page_flushcache()
Date: Thu, 16 Mar 2023 09:16:34 -0700	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <641340e2998b4_2695182944f@iweiny-mobl.notmuch> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <87lejxmax8.fsf@mpe.ellerman.id.au>

+ Konstantin

Michael Ellerman wrote:
> Ira Weiny <ira.weiny@intel.com> writes:
> > Dave Hansen wrote:
> >> On 3/15/23 16:20, Ira Weiny wrote:
> >> > Commit 21b56c847753 ("iov_iter: get rid of separate bvec and xarray 
> >> > callbacks") removed the calls to memcpy_page_flushcache().
> >> > 
> >> > kmap_atomic() is deprecated and used in the x86 version of
> >> > memcpy_page_flushcache().
> >> > 
> >> > Remove the unnecessary memcpy_page_flushcache() call from all arch's.
> >> 
> >> Hi Ira,
> >> 
> >> Since the common code user is already gone these three patches seem
> >> quite independent.  It seems like the right thing to do is have
> >> individual arch maintainers cherry pick their arch patch and carry it
> >> independently.
> >
> > Yes.
> >
> >> 
> >> Is there a compelling reason to have someone pick up and carry these all
> >> together that I'm missing?
> >
> > No reason.  Would you like me to submit them individually?
> 
> I'll just grab the powerpc one from the thread, no need to resend.

Thanks.

> 
> > Sorry, submitting them separately crossed my mind when I wrote them but I
> > kind of forgot as they were all on the same branch and I was waiting for
> > after the merge window to submit them.
> 
> It's also much easier to run git-send-email HEAD^^^, rather than running
> it three separate times, let alone if it's a 20 patch series.

Exactly.  And I'm using b4 which would have forced me to create a separate
branch for each of the patches to track.  So I was keeping them around in
a single branch to let 0day run after the merge window.  Then I forgot
about the idea of splitting them because b4 had it all packaged up nice!

> 
> I wonder if we could come up with some convention to indicate that a
> series is made up of independent patches, and maintainers are free to
> pick them individually - but still sent as a single series.

Maybe.  But perhaps b4 could have a send option which would split them
out?  I'll see about adding an option to b4 but I've Cc'ed Konstantin as
well for the idea.

Thanks for picking this up!
Ira

> 
> cheers