From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Al Viro Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 04/20] unify generic instances of csum_partial_copy_nocheck() Date: Mon, 27 Jul 2020 04:58:14 +0100 Message-ID: <20200727035814.GA794331@ZenIV.linux.org.uk> References: <20200724012512.GK2786714@ZenIV.linux.org.uk> <20200724012546.302155-1-viro@ZenIV.linux.org.uk> <20200724012546.302155-4-viro@ZenIV.linux.org.uk> <20200724064117.GA10522@infradead.org> <20200724121918.GL2786714@ZenIV.linux.org.uk> <20200724122337.GA23095@infradead.org> <20200724123040.GM2786714@ZenIV.linux.org.uk> <20200726071132.GA8862@infradead.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Received: from lindbergh.monkeyblade.net ([23.128.96.19]:53282 "EHLO lindbergh.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1726676AbgG0D6R (ORCPT ); Sun, 26 Jul 2020 23:58:17 -0400 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20200726071132.GA8862@infradead.org> Sender: linux-arch-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: To: Christoph Hellwig Cc: Linus Torvalds , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-arch@vger.kernel.org On Sun, Jul 26, 2020 at 08:11:32AM +0100, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > On Fri, Jul 24, 2020 at 01:30:40PM +0100, Al Viro wrote: > > > Sorry, I meant csum_and_copy_from_nocheck, just as in this patch. > > > > > > Merging your branch into the net-next tree thus will conflict in > > > the nios2 and asm-geneeric/checksum.h as well as lib/checksum.c. > > > > Noted, but that asm-generic/checksum.h conflict will be "massage > > in net-next/outright removal in this branch"; the same goes for > > lib/checksum.c and nios2. It's c6x that is unpleasant in that respect... > > What about just rebasing your branch on the net-next tree? For now I've just cherry-picked your commit in there. net-next interaction there is minimal; most of the PITA (and potential breakage) is in arch/*...