From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: David Howells Subject: Re: [PATCH 22/29] Disintegrate asm/system.h for S390 Date: Mon, 12 Mar 2012 23:40:06 +0000 Message-ID: <14404.1331595606@redhat.com> References: <20120308121828.2cdbdc8c@de.ibm.com> <20120307194548.15987.36073.stgit@warthog.procyon.org.uk> <20120307195001.15987.31240.stgit@warthog.procyon.org.uk> Return-path: In-Reply-To: <20120308121828.2cdbdc8c@de.ibm.com> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Martin Schwidefsky Cc: dhowells@redhat.com, paul.gortmaker@windriver.com, hpa@zytor.com, torvalds@linux-foundation.org, sfr@canb.auug.org.au, mingo@redhat.com, arnd@arndb.de, tglx@linutronix.de, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-arch@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-arch.vger.kernel.org Martin Schwidefsky wrote: > This hunk will conflict with "[PATCH] rework smp code" in the linux-next > tree. The sigp.h header is disintegrated as well.. > But except for this little hiccup I like the idea to split system.h, > makes a lot of sense. I've just posted a new version of my patchset that reverses the order of the patches to put the arch-specific bits first. Each arch-specific bit is a stand-alone reduction of that asm/system.h to just a bunch of #includes which is deleted by the final patch (except where asm-generic/system.h is involved). As these are independent, it would, for example, be possible to just take the s390 one into your tree and merge it with your changes. David From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:50648 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1758046Ab2CLXk1 (ORCPT ); Mon, 12 Mar 2012 19:40:27 -0400 From: David Howells In-Reply-To: <20120308121828.2cdbdc8c@de.ibm.com> References: <20120308121828.2cdbdc8c@de.ibm.com> <20120307194548.15987.36073.stgit@warthog.procyon.org.uk> <20120307195001.15987.31240.stgit@warthog.procyon.org.uk> Subject: Re: [PATCH 22/29] Disintegrate asm/system.h for S390 Date: Mon, 12 Mar 2012 23:40:06 +0000 Message-ID: <14404.1331595606@redhat.com> Sender: linux-arch-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: To: Martin Schwidefsky Cc: dhowells@redhat.com, paul.gortmaker@windriver.com, hpa@zytor.com, torvalds@linux-foundation.org, sfr@canb.auug.org.au, mingo@redhat.com, arnd@arndb.de, tglx@linutronix.de, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-arch@vger.kernel.org Message-ID: <20120312234006.nw4FcI6DWHhkz3a27QnwjMlk_O-KGGA-1R5xhqXFWrQ@z> Martin Schwidefsky wrote: > This hunk will conflict with "[PATCH] rework smp code" in the linux-next > tree. The sigp.h header is disintegrated as well.. > But except for this little hiccup I like the idea to split system.h, > makes a lot of sense. I've just posted a new version of my patchset that reverses the order of the patches to put the arch-specific bits first. Each arch-specific bit is a stand-alone reduction of that asm/system.h to just a bunch of #includes which is deleted by the final patch (except where asm-generic/system.h is involved). As these are independent, it would, for example, be possible to just take the s390 one into your tree and merge it with your changes. David