From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751818AbaHRBZ1 (ORCPT ); Sun, 17 Aug 2014 21:25:27 -0400 Received: from mho-02-ewr.mailhop.org ([204.13.248.72]:38003 "EHLO mho-02-ewr.mailhop.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751548AbaHRBZZ (ORCPT ); Sun, 17 Aug 2014 21:25:25 -0400 X-Mail-Handler: Dyn Standard SMTP by Dyn X-Originating-IP: 96.249.243.124 X-Report-Abuse-To: abuse@dyndns.com (see http://www.dyndns.com/services/sendlabs/outbound_abuse.html for abuse reporting information) X-MHO-User: U2FsdGVkX188qJcQ9+G3E60hqs4RLcYgNxbzM/7ERvI= X-DKIM: OpenDKIM Filter v2.0.1 titan 8FAB15C8370 Date: Sun, 17 Aug 2014 21:25:12 -0400 From: Jason Cooper To: Nicolas Pitre Cc: Russell King - ARM Linux , Stephen Boyd , linux-arm-msm@vger.kernel.org, Thomas Gleixner , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org Subject: Re: [PATCH v4] irqchip: gic: Allow gic_arch_extn hooks to call into scheduler Message-ID: <20140818012512.GL12769@titan.lakedaemon.net> References: <1407938238-21413-1-git-send-email-sboyd@codeaurora.org> <20140817173236.GG12769@titan.lakedaemon.net> <20140817185522.GX30401@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk> <20140817190434.GJ12769@titan.lakedaemon.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Sun, Aug 17, 2014 at 08:04:45PM -0400, Nicolas Pitre wrote: > On Sun, 17 Aug 2014, Jason Cooper wrote: > > On Sun, Aug 17, 2014 at 07:55:23PM +0100, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote: > > > On Sun, Aug 17, 2014 at 01:32:36PM -0400, Jason Cooper wrote: > > > > Applied to irqchip/urgent with Nico's Ack. > > > > > > Interesting, so I'm discussing this patch, and it gets applied anyway... > > > yes, that's great. > > > > Quoting Nico: > > > > "Of course it would be good to clarify things wrt Russell's remark > > independently from this patch." > > > > I took 'independently' to mean "This patch is ok, *and* we need to > > address Russell's concerns in a follow-up patch." > > > > Nico's Reviewed-by with that comment was sent August 13th. The most > > recent activity on this thread was also August 13th. After four days, I > > reasoned there were no objections to his comment. > > Well... I mentioned this patch is a nice cleanup independently of the > reason why it was created in the first place. Ah, fair enough. > Maybe that shouldn't be sorted as "urgent" in that case, especially > when the code having problem with the current state of things is > living out of mainline. hmmm, yes. I've been grappling with the semantics of '/urgent' vice '/fixes'. With mvebu, /fixes is the branch for all changes needing to go into the current -rcX cycle. For irqchip, Thomas suggested /urgent for the equivalent branch. To me, they serve the same purpose. Unfortunately, I occasionally hear "Well, it's not _urgent_ ...". I suppose I'll put up with it for one more cycle and then change it to /fixes. :) wrt this patch, I need to drop it anyway. I was a bit rusty (it's been a few weeks) and forgot to add the Cc -stable and Fixes: tags. I do agree, though, it's certainly not urgent. As Russell has raised more issues with this patch as well, I'll hold off on re-applying until I see a new version. Hopefully it'll meet with everyones approval. thx, Jason.