Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
Date:   Thu, 18 Aug 2022 18:59:00 +0200
From:   Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@linutronix.de>
To:     Jakub Kicinski <kuba@kernel.org>
Cc:     linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
        Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>,
        Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
        Matthew Wilcox <willy@infradead.org>, netdev@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 9/9] u64_stat: Remove the obsolete fetch_irq() variants
Message-ID: <Yv5v1E6mfpcxjnLV@linutronix.de>
References: <20220817162703.728679-1-bigeasy@linutronix.de>
 <20220817162703.728679-10-bigeasy@linutronix.de>
 <20220817112745.4efd8217@kernel.org>
 <Yv5aSquR9S2KxUr2@linutronix.de>
 <20220818090200.4c6889f2@kernel.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20220818090200.4c6889f2@kernel.org>
Precedence: bulk

On 2022-08-18 09:02:00 [-0700], Jakub Kicinski wrote:
> On Thu, 18 Aug 2022 17:27:06 +0200 Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote:
> > On 2022-08-17 11:27:45 [-0700], Jakub Kicinski wrote:
> > > What's the thinking on merging? 8 and 9 will get reposted separately 
> > > for net-next once the discussions are over?  
> > 
> > It depends on 2/9. So either it gets routed via -tip with your blessing
> > or a feature branch containing 2/9 on top of -rc1 so you can pull that
> > change and apply 8+9.
> > Just say what works best for you and I let tglx know ;)
> 
> Heh, I saw a message from Greg politely and informatively explaining 
> to someone how they have to structure their refactoring to avoid
> conflicts in linux-next. I should have saved it cause my oratorical
> skills are weak.

No need to explains, just say that you want to see the networking bits
only ;)

> No ack, I'd much rather you waited for after the next merge window 
> and queued this refactoring to net-next. Patch 9 is changing 70
> files in networking. Unless I'm missing something and this is time
> sensitive.

It started with the clean up of the mess that has been made in the merge
and then it went on a little.

Any opinion on 8/9? It could wait for the next merge window if you want
to avoid a feature branch to pull from.

Regarding 9/9. This is a clean up, which is possible after 8/9. It can
definitely be applied later.
I assume you want only see the networking bits so I would split the
other subsystem out. I guess instead the big net patch I split them on
per driver vendor basis + net/ subsys?

Sebastian