From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S933664Ab2LGLr7 (ORCPT ); Fri, 7 Dec 2012 06:47:59 -0500 Received: from mail.eecsit.tu-berlin.de ([130.149.17.13]:34388 "EHLO mail.cs.tu-berlin.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S932675Ab2LGLr6 (ORCPT ); Fri, 7 Dec 2012 06:47:58 -0500 Message-ID: <50C1D758.1080007@cs.tu-berlin.de> Date: Fri, 07 Dec 2012 12:47:36 +0100 From: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?=22Jan_H=2E_Sch=F6nherr=22?= User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:10.0.3) Gecko/20120324 Thunderbird/10.0.3 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Joe Perches CC: Andrew Morton , Greg Kroah-Hartman , Kay Sievers , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Stephen Rothwell Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 00/14] printk() fixes, optimizations, and clean ups References: <1354813571-11253-1-git-send-email-schnhrr@cs.tu-berlin.de> <20121206133907.37c255e9.akpm@linux-foundation.org> <1354837050.22463.4.camel@joe-AO722> <20121206161943.78633125.akpm@linux-foundation.org> <1354848669.22463.23.camel@joe-AO722> In-Reply-To: <1354848669.22463.23.camel@joe-AO722> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Am 07.12.2012 03:51, schrieb Joe Perches: > On Thu, 2012-12-06 at 16:19 -0800, Andrew Morton wrote: >> On Thu, 06 Dec 2012 15:37:30 -0800 >> Joe Perches wrote: >>> Can you please pick this up for -next now and I'll >>> redo my patches against -next for -rc1 so I'm not >>> delayed until 3.9? >> >> It would be better to do things in the other order. >> >> a) Your patches perform mainly code-movement which doesn't cause >> functional changes. Jan's patches are functional changes which >> require more thought and testing and possible fixups. > > Fine by me. Jan? No problem. I agree with Andrew, that patches 9 to 14 could use indeed some more eyeballs. Patches 1 to 8 are more straight-forward, and I would consider these ready. However, they are also those, where I probably won't have any trouble rebasing them on top of your changes. Anyway. Until now I always thought my patches will end up in the queue of some maintainer, so that I don't have to bother about _when_ posting my patches. Therefore: when should I repost a version rebased on top of Joe's changes? (If I'd get some opinions on 9 to 14 until then, all the better.) Regards Jan