Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752567AbbGAHeV (ORCPT ); Wed, 1 Jul 2015 03:34:21 -0400 Received: from mail-oi0-f41.google.com ([209.85.218.41]:35044 "EHLO mail-oi0-f41.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753443AbbGAHeN (ORCPT ); Wed, 1 Jul 2015 03:34:13 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <1435702685.24693.3.camel@ellerman.id.au> References: <1435634913.24866.1.camel@ellerman.id.au> <1435702685.24693.3.camel@ellerman.id.au> Date: Wed, 1 Jul 2015 09:34:11 +0200 X-Google-Sender-Auth: 2VPEYSp8BoW881sGH2MKSc6wlag Message-ID: Subject: Re: [PATCH RESEND] Update kernel math-emu code from current glibc soft-fp From: Geert Uytterhoeven To: Michael Ellerman Cc: Joseph Myers , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , alpha , "linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org" , linux-s390 , Linux-sh list , sparclinux , "David S.Miller" , Martin Schwidefsky , Heiko Carstens Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1908 Lines: 53 On Wed, Jul 1, 2015 at 12:18 AM, Michael Ellerman wrote: > On Tue, 2015-06-30 at 10:48 +0000, Joseph Myers wrote: >> On Tue, 30 Jun 2015, Michael Ellerman wrote: >> >> > Is there some way you can imagine of splitting this up into smaller chunks, so >> > that different arches can merge the pieces separately? >> >> Well, it could be split as: >> >> 1. Rename include/math-emu to math-emu-old and update architectures for >> the renaming (mechanically). >> >> 2. Add new include/math-emu. >> >> 3,4,5,6,7. Move each architecture from math-emu-old to math-emu. >> >> 8. Remove math-emu-old. >> >> You still have patch 1 affecting all five architectures, but with the >> per-architecture changes being much simpler. > > OK. That's obviously a bit more churn, but I think it's probably the best > approach. Unless someone else has a better idea? Does it make that much of a difference? You said: | However in it's current form it's not easily mergeable, because it touches five | architectures and has the potential to cause breakage on all of them. Patch 1 still touches five architectures. Patches 3-7 still have the potential to break an architecture, but only one of them at a time. >From a bisectability point of view there's no change. Except that patch 1 (and 8) may break something, too ;-) Gr{oetje,eeting}s, Geert -- Geert Uytterhoeven -- There's lots of Linux beyond ia32 -- geert@linux-m68k.org In personal conversations with technical people, I call myself a hacker. But when I'm talking to journalists I just say "programmer" or something like that. -- Linus Torvalds -- 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/