From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "H. Peter Anvin" Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/3] Code clean up for percpu_xxx() functions Date: Wed, 11 Jan 2012 16:44:55 -0800 Message-ID: <4F0E2D07.1010502@zytor.com> References: <1318428673.29699.13.camel@debian> <1318908091.23426.52.camel@debian> <1319016218.23426.104.camel@debian> <1319096139.23426.184.camel@debian> <1321866612.30341.572.camel@debian> <20111122000653.GS25776@google.com> <1326272921.5695.263.camel@debian> <20120111171951.GF26832@google.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: "Alex,Shi" , Christoph Lameter , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , "eric.dumazet@gmail.com" , "Huang, Ying" , Thomas Gleixner , "mingo@redhat.com" , "avi@redhat.com" , "akpm@linux-foundation.org" , David Miller , "kaber@trash.net" , "a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl" , "kvm@vger.kernel.org" , Andi Kleen To: "tj@kernel.org" Return-path: In-Reply-To: <20120111171951.GF26832@google.com> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: kvm.vger.kernel.org On 01/11/2012 09:19 AM, tj@kernel.org wrote: > > Alex, can you please collect all patches into a single patchset? > Please split it such that, usage changes are per-system so that they > can be routed through respective subsystems (x86 or net) and updates > to percpu proper which can be applied after other changes have been > applied. It would probably be best to route these patches separately > rather than all through percpu as it touches a lot of different places > and is likely to cause conflicts. I *think* the best way would be, > > * Submit per-subsystem patches and get them merged to subsystem trees. > > * (Optional) Apply a patch to mark unused interface deprecated in > percpu tree, so that new usages in linux-next can be detected. > > * Towards the end of the next merge window, merge a patch to actually > kill the old interface. > That sounds like a good idea. -hpa