Re: [PATCH v4 0/6] generic early_ioremap support

["H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>]

All three .

On March 3, 2014 2:29:08 PM PST, Mark Salter <msalter@redhat.com> wrote:
>On Tue, 2014-02-25 at 11:42 -0800, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
>> On 02/25/2014 10:45 AM, Mark Salter wrote:
>> > On Tue, 2014-02-25 at 18:30 +0000, Will Deacon wrote:
>> >> I'd suggest spitting the core part out from the arch-specific
>parts. That
>> >> way, the core part can merged independently and architectures can
>move over
>> >> as they see fit. It also signals (at least to me) that, "hey, I
>should
>> >> probably review this" whilst my current stance is "there's a whole
>load of
>> >> stuff under mm/ that needs to be acked first".
>> >>
>> >> If you put the whole thing into next, you just run the risk of
>conflicts
>> >> with all the arch trees.
>> > 
>> > I've been thinking of breaking out the common bits and x86 bits and
>just
>> > going with that for now. There's no point in just doing the common
>bits
>> > because it won't get tested without at least one architecture using
>it.
>> > 
>> 
>> If you think it makes sense we could take the common bits + x86 and
>put
>> them through the -tip tree.  The other option would be to put the
>whole
>> thread in linux-next with Acks.
>> 
>> As far as x86 is concerned it looks like it is mostly just code
>> movement, so I'm happy giving my:
>> 
>> Acked-by: H. Peter Anvin <hpa@linux.intel.com>
>> 
>
>I going to send out a v5 with the arm bits dropped and Ack-bys added.
>There is still some work left there, so I think I'll redo the arm bits
>separately after once the common bits are in the kernel.
>
>Peter, is your Acked-by only for "[3/6] x86: use generic
>early_ioremap"?
>Or did you intend "[1/6] x86/mm: sparse warning fix for early_memremap"
>and/or "[2/6] mm: create generic early_ioremap() support" also?

-- 
Sent from my mobile phone.  Please pardon brevity and lack of formatting.