Re: linux-next: manual merge of the tiny tree with the tip tree

[Josh Triplett <josh@joshtriplett.org>]

On Tue, Sep 23, 2014 at 10:36:03AM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> * Josh Triplett <josh@joshtriplett.org> wrote:
> > I've dropped tiny/no-io from tiny/next; I'll poke at it further 
> > and resubmit for the x86 tree later, likely not for the next 
> > merge window at this point.
> > 
> > Thanks for the feedback on process; this is day 1 of having a 
> > merge-window-bound tree in -next for the first time. :)
> 
> Sorry about the harshness of my initial email - I was unsure 
> about the background and we are close to the merge window. I have 
> no objections against the -tiny tree in linux-next, it's a good 
> effort.
> 
> I think we could cut down on the #ifdef uglies if we made the 
> ioperm callback pointer unconditional. That's just a tiny amount 
> of extra bloat, but should remove half of the #ifdefs or so? The 
> rest of the patches look fine.

I've revised the patch to eliminate quite a few #ifdefs, and in
particular almost all of those in .c files, by adding a macro
INIT_SET_IOPL_MASK to use in place of the initializer for set_iopl_mask,
and using __maybe_unused rather than wrapping function definitions in
#ifdef.  I'll send a new version momentarily.

> Usually hpa handles the x86 ioperm area, but he's swamped right 
> now, so I'll look at picking them up once you have submitted the 
> latest version. If you send it in the next day or two then they 
> could make the v3.18 merge window.

Other things came up (LinuxCon / Plumbers), but hopefully the new
version can go into 3.19.

- Josh Triplett