Re: [PATCHv2 00/11]Get rid of all the old macro DMA_nBIT_MASK and use DMA_BIT_MASK(n) instead

[Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>]

* Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org> wrote:

> On Thu, 19 Feb 2009 16:08:51 +0100
> Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu> wrote:
> 
> > 
> > * Stefan Richter <stefanr@s5r6.in-berlin.de> wrote:
> > 
> > > Yang Hongyang wrote:
> > > > v1->v2:fix s/micro/macro typo and keep the old defines
> > > >             of DMA_nBIT_MASK
> > > > ----------------------
> > > > Replace all DMA_nBIT_MASK macro with the new DMA_BIT_MASK(n) macro
> > > > 
> > > > 01:Replace all DMA_64BIT_MASK macro with DMA_BIT_MASK(64)
> > > > 02:Replace all DMA_48BIT_MASK macro with DMA_BIT_MASK(48)
> > > > 03:Replace all DMA_40BIT_MASK macro with DMA_BIT_MASK(40)
> > > > 04:Replace all DMA_39BIT_MASK macro with DMA_BIT_MASK(39)
> > > > 05:Replace all DMA_35BIT_MASK macro with DMA_BIT_MASK(35)
> > > > 06:Replace all DMA_32BIT_MASK macro with DMA_BIT_MASK(32)
> > > > 07:Replace all DMA_31BIT_MASK macro with DMA_BIT_MASK(31)
> > > > 08:Replace all DMA_30BIT_MASK macro with DMA_BIT_MASK(30)
> > > > 09:Replace all DMA_28BIT_MASK macro with DMA_BIT_MASK(28)
> > > > 10:Replace all DMA_24BIT_MASK macro with DMA_BIT_MASK(24)
> > > > 11:Update the old macro DMA_nBIT_MASK related documentations
> > > > 
> > > 
> > > Shouldn't you organize the patch series per subsystem, not per old
> > > macro?  And then Cc the respective maintainers?
> > > 
> > > As it stands, the patches cannot be routed through the normal channels;
> > > yet there is no fundamental reason to handle these patches differently
> > > from normal patches.
> > 
> > Traditionally such trivially correct convert-it-all patches 
> > lived in -mm and were merged upstream in one go, near the end of 
> > the merge window.
> > 
> > Sprinkling it into dozens of subsystem channels (some of which 
> > are very unreliable) is neither good nor an economic use of our 
> > resources.
> > 
> > Patches that can potentially cause trouble should go via the 
> > usual channels.
> > 
> 
> yes, fun.
> 
> I hit several rejects merging these, easily fixed.  After this 
> lot is merged there will probably be a few unconverted sites 
> which will need a second pass.  After that we can think about 
> removing the old #defines.

Yeah. I wanted to suggest for you to _drop_ all conflicts - 
because the old defines still live.

That makes it the easiest for you to keep it all merged up in 
the future too with minimum fuss, and we need a second pass 
anyway so dropping a few hunks is no big issue.

[ But since you merged it up that's fine too - it's just that 
  code that got changed recently and created conflicts has a 
  higher chance of being changed in the near future too - and 
  causing you ongoing conflicts in that area, in the next ~1.5 
  months until the next merge window closes. ]

	Ingo