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:   Thu, 10 Mar 2022 13:07:57 -0800
From:   Luis Chamberlain <mcgrof@kernel.org>
To:     Daniel Thompson <daniel.thompson@linaro.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: <YiporeSIrkFg/YS8@bombadil.infradead.org>
References: <20220307174741.2889588-1-atomlin@redhat.com>
 <20220308105203.2981099-1-atomlin@redhat.com>
 <20220309120640.uumh46n2l37jaddf@maple.lan>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20220309120640.uumh46n2l37jaddf@maple.lan>
Sender: Luis Chamberlain <mcgrof@infradead.org>
Precedence: bulk

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.

  Luis