From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from smtp.kernel.org (aws-us-west-2-korg-mail-alma10-1.taild15c8.ts.net [100.103.45.18]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8418237DEB6; Thu, 10 Sep 2026 03:20:36 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=100.103.45.18 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1789010437; cv=none; b=qH7kPm1fcNqeFaCVBEM4fq/a0VoXxa+cpNKOiJceBaQpeErZWKB7F5Lz7WrLH+8sJGP2aAzx+jE0brrdM2ak/nMifT6d2tkFR1I8Palb9wC8vi9O2APZ/cEASXGBh9G/sJuTr9GUc2fi6GwOr86xQZUudoW++khmgDBQAplAE+4= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1789010437; c=relaxed/simple; bh=wLK4mIxthB3BZvo7ECLXPgPSLtaD20pir6OdlRw0VyY=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:In-Reply-To:References: MIME-Version:Content-Type; b=A6VtGd/bd9EXvrQvfr3n4112mBRUGDRlI5rxarvy3O0A31IHOxDU1rfjdRTpXUt43BpJFw+1vV1/TTwg3LwFzPeV44XzcsvSGU8eyGMBr0YSrQ0i0tYAVUjscGf7Op2vhyHB/WAdurapVfbih3Z1W3e5OoCt0MDv1SfTPd/nt+4= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.b=AA2rDpoR; arc=none smtp.client-ip=100.103.45.18 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.b="AA2rDpoR" Received: by smtp.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id D389C1F000FF; Thu, 10 Sep 2026 03:20:33 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=kernel.org; s=k20260515; t=1789010436; bh=2EB70JFDpzLI0s6pkD0sPoT0z4Ey0yYYBi6G0LOrZC8=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References; b=AA2rDpoRtm+3ufmdFn844tzBcFS6/ZdCe0Bdckhfc0pea/DdDAcB+DKL80DZmG3aw 0utk5kDv+DtgXxkjQM8dzy3RfXV76m8+/ZPBNCCf09NhINacKEcKSFrPCtCF/ZbZ8T pL3+dfKGjY5RZXMMLrlXWmCShxknmDbWP59QbNVanCejj7PUsYVNedqCq9fmTm5xUH ImLGpsgOsMfb3rs4L5L44EtV99Y/IC3ShLnYsXiEi0u2L72LnOmC9TYoQ2TI30JEYN AjGJqBXRNIWkUOVxMQ0L9MQdhJzzgSgUsTKgOGzV8ei9EljbhKfC/a8B58hAzzn3Sr IIqjsllRjPE7A== Date: Thu, 10 Sep 2026 04:20:29 +0100 From: Jonathan Cameron To: Borislav Petkov Cc: Uwe =?UTF-8?B?S2xlaW5lLUvDtm5pZw==?= , David Laight , linux-iio@vger.kernel.org, Nicolas Pitre , Ingo Molnar , Thomas Gleinxer , Dave Hansen , x86@kernel.org, Andrew Morton , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, "H. Peter Anvin" , Peter Zijlstra , rodrigo.alencar@analog.com Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/2] x86: Use "er" asm constriant for add/sub Message-ID: <20260910042029.7c78f6dd@jic23-hlaptop> In-Reply-To: <20260908165501.GDaqA95YQKx_IL416d@fat_crate.local> References: <20260803094702.3852-1-david.laight.linux@gmail.com> <11o7545n-7569-3p9r-1q77-8nor8513r6n1@syhkavp.arg> <20260803163955.627bdd3f@pumpkin> <20260823233536.30b984ed@jic23-huawei> <20260901175101.1e059ac8@jic23-huawei> <20260907231444.7fa2d116@jic23-huawei> <20260908033216.GAap-BwAmBqoVDUbMK@fat_crate.local> <20260908152127.GCaqAn9zI09T7qvMhH@fat_crate.local> <20260908165501.GDaqA95YQKx_IL416d@fat_crate.local> X-Mailer: Claws Mail 4.4.0 (GTK 3.24.52; x86_64-pc-linux-gnu) Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-iio@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Tue, 8 Sep 2026 09:55:01 -0700 Borislav Petkov wrote: > On Tue, Sep 08, 2026 at 05:49:17PM +0200, Uwe Kleine-K=C3=B6nig wrote: > > I don't see what you mean. If both the tip tree and the iio tree > > contain the same commit (with or without a tag on it), it doesn't matter > > who created that and when and in which repo it appeared first. The first > > to send it to Linus makes it new for him and all later PRs using it only > > introduce the follow-up commits. So if you pull Jonathan's branch you > > still can send the branch/tag that contains it whenever you like > > independant of when Jonathan sends out his PR. =20 >=20 > Yes, I'm going to have to merge that branch into tip now so I'd need the > assurance from Jonathan that this branch is not going to change. That's what an immutable branch means to everyone I've ever shared them with in the past, but sure - it wouldn't change. Anyhow, easier solution below. >=20 > Also, those patches are not tip-conform, but whatever, not that important= for > a one-time thing. >=20 > What I really don't understand is, why this rush needs to happen now so t= hat > we completely do a one-off on the agreed upon process and we have to do a= ll > this unnecessary gymnastics? >=20 > We have plenty of time. >=20 > So why do we even have to debate this instead of you folks dropping this = and > we merge it through tip and then everything's going the usual way? >=20 > When people start merging x86 patches in their trees, when do you think t= he > process will break down and we'll have to redo branches and go into a cra= zy > dependency madness? >=20 > We're not merging other stuff through tip without an Ack - why can't you > adhere to the process we've all agreed upon? >=20 > Yes, this can work now. Is it necessary? Absolutely not because it is > a one-off and will get everyone involved, confused. >=20 > So please do not do this in the future. If we don't react to the mail, yo= u can > always ping us on IRC like other folks do. >=20 > Thx. I've dropped the branch from IIO. That's fine because it was still being tested and hasn't gone out as non-rebasing yet. Next time I'll maybe find an IRC gateway and ping you on that. I can't find any reference to that being your preference in the kernel docs. Given you have a helpful page on tip, might be worth adding a note. I might of course be missing it. If it goes into a reasonably early rc, I'll just merge the relevant rc rather than needing an immutable. If next cycle, immutable please. I started out a bit grumpy that I had to hold a non trivial series for a cycle because of an x86 bug (having been very happy when David fixed it incredibly quickly!), that got reviewed then disappeared down a hole and didn't look like it would ever be seen again. Meh, got me on a belligerent day. Jonathan