From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Vineet Gupta Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 16/76] ARC: Syscall support (no-legacy-syscall ABI) Date: Sat, 19 Jan 2013 18:26:26 +0530 Message-ID: <50FA97FA.9050603@synopsys.com> References: <1358511930-7424-1-git-send-email-vgupta@synopsys.com> <1358511930-7424-17-git-send-email-vgupta@synopsys.com> <20130119030918.GA23552@ZenIV.linux.org.uk> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from vaxjo.synopsys.com ([198.182.60.75]:34202 "EHLO vaxjo.synopsys.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750862Ab3ASM4k (ORCPT ); Sat, 19 Jan 2013 07:56:40 -0500 In-Reply-To: <20130119030918.GA23552@ZenIV.linux.org.uk> Sender: linux-arch-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: To: Al Viro Cc: linux-arch@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, arnd@arndb.de On Saturday 19 January 2013 08:39 AM, Al Viro wrote: > Please, collapse your #36--#40 into that one (and I'd probably fold #17 > here as well, to simplify that reordering). Sure, it's not a bisection > hazard, but... Thanks again for the review Al. Sure, I can do that - however because those patches have bits in arch/arc/Kconfig, I'll have to move the Build system patch towards start of series, or simply chop off Kconfig bits out of those and add them later - what do you prefer ? My only reason for chunking those up was to capture the intermediate development of how execve and friends were generalized (and have limited revision history even in initial upstream version). While I was used to the old code, specially copy_thread() between 1st and last change seemed to be almost rewritten. Having said that, I don't have strong opinion either ways. Thx, -Vineet