From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1755375AbaCDBdt (ORCPT ); Mon, 3 Mar 2014 20:33:49 -0500 Received: from terminus.zytor.com ([198.137.202.10]:33203 "EHLO mail.zytor.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753241AbaCDBds (ORCPT ); Mon, 3 Mar 2014 20:33:48 -0500 User-Agent: K-9 Mail for Android In-Reply-To: <1393885748.5094.14.camel@deneb.redhat.com> References: <1392238575-10000-1-git-send-email-msalter@redhat.com> <1393337404.7307.51.camel@deneb.redhat.com> <20140225183012.GA27164@mudshark.cambridge.arm.com> <1393353942.26583.10.camel@deneb.redhat.com> <530CF21E.1020603@zytor.com> <1393885748.5094.14.camel@deneb.redhat.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 0/6] generic early_ioremap support From: "H. Peter Anvin" Date: Mon, 03 Mar 2014 17:30:16 -0800 To: Mark Salter CC: Will Deacon , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , "x86@kernel.org" , "linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org" , Andrew Morton , Arnd Bergmann , Ingo Molnar , Thomas Gleixner , Russell King , Catalin Marinas , Dave Young , Rob Herring , Leif Lindholm , "patches@linaro.org" Message-ID: <2d10d2d3-02e3-42b6-9b81-464f56e4cf01@email.android.com> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org All three . On March 3, 2014 2:29:08 PM PST, Mark Salter wrote: >On Tue, 2014-02-25 at 11:42 -0800, H. Peter Anvin wrote: >> On 02/25/2014 10:45 AM, Mark Salter wrote: >> > On Tue, 2014-02-25 at 18:30 +0000, Will Deacon wrote: >> >> I'd suggest spitting the core part out from the arch-specific >parts. That >> >> way, the core part can merged independently and architectures can >move over >> >> as they see fit. It also signals (at least to me) that, "hey, I >should >> >> probably review this" whilst my current stance is "there's a whole >load of >> >> stuff under mm/ that needs to be acked first". >> >> >> >> If you put the whole thing into next, you just run the risk of >conflicts >> >> with all the arch trees. >> > >> > I've been thinking of breaking out the common bits and x86 bits and >just >> > going with that for now. There's no point in just doing the common >bits >> > because it won't get tested without at least one architecture using >it. >> > >> >> If you think it makes sense we could take the common bits + x86 and >put >> them through the -tip tree. The other option would be to put the >whole >> thread in linux-next with Acks. >> >> As far as x86 is concerned it looks like it is mostly just code >> movement, so I'm happy giving my: >> >> Acked-by: H. Peter Anvin >> > >I going to send out a v5 with the arm bits dropped and Ack-bys added. >There is still some work left there, so I think I'll redo the arm bits >separately after once the common bits are in the kernel. > >Peter, is your Acked-by only for "[3/6] x86: use generic >early_ioremap"? >Or did you intend "[1/6] x86/mm: sparse warning fix for early_memremap" >and/or "[2/6] mm: create generic early_ioremap() support" also? -- Sent from my mobile phone. Please pardon brevity and lack of formatting.