Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
Date:   Wed, 12 Jun 2019 13:56:27 -0700
From:   Jakub Kicinski <jakub.kicinski@netronome.com>
To:     Willem de Bruijn <willemdebruijn.kernel@gmail.com>,
        peterz@infradead.org
Cc:     Network Development <netdev@vger.kernel.org>,
        David Miller <davem@davemloft.net>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Willem de Bruijn <willemb@google.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] locking/static_key: always define
 static_branch_deferred_inc
Message-ID: <20190612135627.5eac995d@cakuba.netronome.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAF=yD-JAZfEG5JoNEQn60gnucJB1gsrFeT38DieG12NQb9DFnQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <20190612194409.197461-1-willemdebruijn.kernel@gmail.com>
        <20190612125911.509d79f2@cakuba.netronome.com>
        <CAF=yD-JAZfEG5JoNEQn60gnucJB1gsrFeT38DieG12NQb9DFnQ@mail.gmail.com>
Organization: Netronome Systems, Ltd.
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Wed, 12 Jun 2019 16:25:16 -0400, Willem de Bruijn wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 12, 2019 at 3:59 PM Jakub Kicinski
> <jakub.kicinski@netronome.com> wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, 12 Jun 2019 15:44:09 -0400, Willem de Bruijn wrote:  
> > > From: Willem de Bruijn <willemb@google.com>
> > >
> > > This interface is currently only defined if CONFIG_JUMP_LABEL. Make it
> > > available also when jump labels are disabled.
> > >
> > > Fixes: ad282a8117d50 ("locking/static_key: Add support for deferred static branches")
> > > Signed-off-by: Willem de Bruijn <willemb@google.com>
> > >
> > > ---
> > >
> > > The original patch went into 5.2-rc1, but this interface is not yet
> > > used, so this could target either 5.2 or 5.3.  
> >
> > Can we drop the Fixes tag?  It's an ugly omission but not a bug fix.
> >
> > Are you planning to switch clean_acked_data_enable() to the helper once
> > merged?  
> 
> Definitely, can do.
> 
> Perhaps it's easiest to send both as a single patch set through net-next, then?

I'd think so too, perhaps we can get a blessing from Peter for that :)