Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753689AbaBYXEk (ORCPT ); Tue, 25 Feb 2014 18:04:40 -0500 Received: from mail-wg0-f51.google.com ([74.125.82.51]:51095 "EHLO mail-wg0-f51.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751356AbaBYXEj convert rfc822-to-8bit (ORCPT ); Tue, 25 Feb 2014 18:04:39 -0500 Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 0/6] generic early_ioremap support Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 7.1 \(1827\)) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 From: Catalin Marinas In-Reply-To: <530CF21E.1020603@zytor.com> Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2014 23:04:34 +0000 Cc: "msalter@redhat.com" , 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 , Dave Young , Rob Herring , Leif Lindholm , "patches@linaro.org" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8BIT Message-Id: <5D4B48CE-46BA-44E8-BCDE-AEACAC9973AF@arm.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> To: "H. Peter Anvin" X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1827) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On 25 Feb 2014, at 19:42, 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. I?m ok with the arm64 patches to go through -tip with my ack on all patches: Acked-by: Catalin Marinas > 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 Thanks. Either way works for me. I think the series still need an ack from rmk at least on the arm patch (4/6). Catalin-- 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/