Received-SPF: softfail (google.com: domain of transitioning linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org does not designate 23.128.96.19 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.19;
Date:   Fri, 11 Mar 2022 15:47:23 +0000
From:   Daniel Thompson <daniel.thompson@linaro.org>
To:     Luis Chamberlain <mcgrof@kernel.org>
Cc:     Aaron Tomlin <atomlin@redhat.com>, christophe.leroy@csgroup.eu,
        hch@infradead.org, cl@linux.com, mbenes@suse.cz,
        akpm@linux-foundation.org, jeyu@kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-modules@vger.kernel.org,
        void@manifault.com, atomlin@atomlin.com, allen.lkml@gmail.com,
        joe@perches.com, msuchanek@suse.de, oleksandr@natalenko.name,
        jason.wessel@windriver.com, pmladek@suse.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] kdb: Remove redundant module related references
Message-ID: <20220311154723.ezo3wvgg4puu2zk7@maple.lan>
References: <20220307174741.2889588-1-atomlin@redhat.com>
 <20220308105203.2981099-1-atomlin@redhat.com>
 <20220309120640.uumh46n2l37jaddf@maple.lan>
 <YiporeSIrkFg/YS8@bombadil.infradead.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <YiporeSIrkFg/YS8@bombadil.infradead.org>
Precedence: bulk

On Thu, Mar 10, 2022 at 01:07:57PM -0800, Luis Chamberlain wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 09, 2022 at 12:06:40PM +0000, Daniel Thompson wrote:
> > On Tue, Mar 08, 2022 at 10:52:03AM +0000, Aaron Tomlin wrote:
> > > Hi Luis, Christoph, Daniel,
> > > 
> > > Is this patch ok or would you rather another iteration of the series?
> > > Either way is fine for me. Thanks.
> > 
> > Another iteration makes more sense to me.
> 
> Iteration yes, but separating the patches no into another series no.
> 
> > The removal of kdb_modules is semantically part of your module clean
> > up patch set and should certainly be included in it.
> > 
> > The removal of the spurious #include's in other kdb files is a
> > good change but it is fully independent of the module rework. AFAICT
> > those fixes are good with or without your changes. This suggests
> > these changes can be separate from the main patch set.
> 
> Small fixes get piled in first on the series. But this is not a fix.
> This effort will not be merged separately too. This won't go into the
> next merge window either, because:
> 
> 1) There is no rush
> 2) It is too late as all this needs proper testing and
>    its too late to claim enough testing
> 
> So given this is all related to the move I see no reason to treat
> this as a separate series. Your review of the v11 would be nice.

The reason to suggest separation was that the changes to the other
files in kernel/debug/ are entirely independent of the module rework
and would usually be landed via a different tree.

On the whole it doesn't really matter much... but landing the
independent parts via the normal route for kgdb code reduces what I
have to remember acking.


Daniel.