Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753567AbaBYTpr (ORCPT ); Tue, 25 Feb 2014 14:45:47 -0500 Received: from terminus.zytor.com ([198.137.202.10]:59179 "EHLO mail.zytor.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752936AbaBYTpq (ORCPT ); Tue, 25 Feb 2014 14:45:46 -0500 Message-ID: <530CF21E.1020603@zytor.com> Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2014 11:42:22 -0800 From: "H. Peter Anvin" User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.2.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Mark Salter , Will Deacon CC: "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" Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 0/6] generic early_ioremap support 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> In-Reply-To: <1393353942.26583.10.camel@deneb.redhat.com> X-Enigmail-Version: 1.6 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org 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 -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/