From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "Paul E. McKenney" Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC 25/26] tile: Remove spin_unlock_wait() arch-specific definitions Date: Thu, 29 Jun 2017 17:24:46 -0700 Message-ID: <20170630002446.GM2393@linux.vnet.ibm.com> References: <20170629235918.GA6445@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <1498780894-8253-25-git-send-email-paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com> Reply-To: paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Linus Torvalds Cc: Linux Kernel Mailing List , NetFilter , Network Development , Oleg Nesterov , Andrew Morton , Ingo Molnar , Davidlohr Bueso , Manfred Spraul , Tejun Heo , Arnd Bergmann , "linux-arch@vger.kernel.org" , Will Deacon , Peter Zijlstra , Alan Stern , Andrea Parri , Chris Metcalf List-Id: linux-arch.vger.kernel.org On Thu, Jun 29, 2017 at 05:10:41PM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote: > On Thu, Jun 29, 2017 at 5:06 PM, Linus Torvalds > wrote: > > > > Please don't make this one commit fopr every architecture. > > > > Once something gets removed, it gets removed. There's no point in > > "remove it from architecture X". If there are no more users, we're > > done with it, and making it be 25 patches with the same commit message > > instead of just one doesn't help anybody. > > Just to clarify: I think the actual *users* are worth doing one by > one, particularly if there are user-specific explanations of what that > particular code wanted, and why spin_unlock_wait() doesn't really > help. Got it, and I did merge -only- the arch-specific definition removals into one commit. Should I also merge the core-code definition removals into that same commit, or is it OK to remove the core-code definitions with one commit and the arch-specific definitions with another. (My guess is that you would prefer I removed -all- definitions with one commit, including the core-kernel definitions, but at this point I figure I should just ask.) > And I think that you actually have those per-user insights by now, > after looking at the long thread. One Acked-by thus far, so some progress! > So I'm not saying "do one patch for the whole series". One patch per > removal of use is fine - in fact preferred. Got it. It allows the developers and maintainers to tell me where my analysis is wrong, for one thing. ;-) > But once there are no actual more users, just remove all the > architecture definitions in one go, because explaining the same thing > several times doesn't actually help anything. > > In fact, *if* we end up ever resurrecting that thing, it's good if we > can resurrect it in one go. Then we can resurrect the one or two users > that turned out to matter after all and could come up with why some > particular ordering was ok too. Understood! Thanx, Paul From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mx0b-001b2d01.pphosted.com ([148.163.158.5]:38541 "EHLO mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751572AbdF3AYv (ORCPT ); Thu, 29 Jun 2017 20:24:51 -0400 Received: from pps.filterd (m0098413.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by mx0b-001b2d01.pphosted.com (8.16.0.20/8.16.0.20) with SMTP id v5U0NmkY107639 for ; Thu, 29 Jun 2017 20:24:50 -0400 Received: from e13.ny.us.ibm.com (e13.ny.us.ibm.com [129.33.205.203]) by mx0b-001b2d01.pphosted.com with ESMTP id 2bcyr904ed-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NOT) for ; Thu, 29 Jun 2017 20:24:50 -0400 Received: from localhost by e13.ny.us.ibm.com with IBM ESMTP SMTP Gateway: Authorized Use Only! Violators will be prosecuted for from ; Thu, 29 Jun 2017 20:24:49 -0400 Date: Thu, 29 Jun 2017 17:24:46 -0700 From: "Paul E. McKenney" Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC 25/26] tile: Remove spin_unlock_wait() arch-specific definitions Reply-To: paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com References: <20170629235918.GA6445@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <1498780894-8253-25-git-send-email-paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20170630002446.GM2393@linux.vnet.ibm.com> Sender: linux-arch-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: To: Linus Torvalds Cc: Linux Kernel Mailing List , NetFilter , Network Development , Oleg Nesterov , Andrew Morton , Ingo Molnar , Davidlohr Bueso , Manfred Spraul , Tejun Heo , Arnd Bergmann , "linux-arch@vger.kernel.org" , Will Deacon , Peter Zijlstra , Alan Stern , Andrea Parri , Chris Metcalf Message-ID: <20170630002446.cZlvr0Pka2FDA7VmIv8SCEkaAzbD5KjN85MCrGozL2k@z> On Thu, Jun 29, 2017 at 05:10:41PM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote: > On Thu, Jun 29, 2017 at 5:06 PM, Linus Torvalds > wrote: > > > > Please don't make this one commit fopr every architecture. > > > > Once something gets removed, it gets removed. There's no point in > > "remove it from architecture X". If there are no more users, we're > > done with it, and making it be 25 patches with the same commit message > > instead of just one doesn't help anybody. > > Just to clarify: I think the actual *users* are worth doing one by > one, particularly if there are user-specific explanations of what that > particular code wanted, and why spin_unlock_wait() doesn't really > help. Got it, and I did merge -only- the arch-specific definition removals into one commit. Should I also merge the core-code definition removals into that same commit, or is it OK to remove the core-code definitions with one commit and the arch-specific definitions with another. (My guess is that you would prefer I removed -all- definitions with one commit, including the core-kernel definitions, but at this point I figure I should just ask.) > And I think that you actually have those per-user insights by now, > after looking at the long thread. One Acked-by thus far, so some progress! > So I'm not saying "do one patch for the whole series". One patch per > removal of use is fine - in fact preferred. Got it. It allows the developers and maintainers to tell me where my analysis is wrong, for one thing. ;-) > But once there are no actual more users, just remove all the > architecture definitions in one go, because explaining the same thing > several times doesn't actually help anything. > > In fact, *if* we end up ever resurrecting that thing, it's good if we > can resurrect it in one go. Then we can resurrect the one or two users > that turned out to matter after all and could come up with why some > particular ordering was ok too. Understood! Thanx, Paul