From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Message-ID: <18444.33867.747492.180348@cargo.ozlabs.ibm.com> Date: Mon, 21 Apr 2008 22:10:51 +1000 From: Paul Mackerras To: Ingo Molnar Subject: Re: linux-next: x86-latest/powerpc-next merge conflict In-Reply-To: <20080421095102.GB1666@elte.hu> References: <20080421191231.41a34aef.sfr@canb.auug.org.au> <20080421095102.GB1666@elte.hu> Cc: Alexander van Heukelum , Stephen Rothwell , linux-next@vger.kernel.org, linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org List-Id: Linux on PowerPC Developers Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Ingo Molnar writes: > Paul, do you agree with those generic bitops changes? Just in case it's Well, it looks OK, but I'm sure people are going to get confused with fls vs. fls64 vs. __fls all being subtly different. I'd say it's worth putting a little file in the Documentation directory to explain it all. > not obvious from previous discussions: we'll push them upstream via a > separate pull request, not via usual x86.git changes. They originated > from x86.git but grew into a more generic improvement for all. They sit > in x86.git for tester convenience but are of course not pure x86 changes > anymore. I'm not sure why the "add __fls to all 64-bit architectures" change has to be done as a single patch rather than a patch per architecture going through the architecture maintainers. I suppose that avoids any problem with some maintainers not sending it upstream quickly. I would expect that if it is a single cross-architecture patch that it would go through Andrew Morton, though. But if Andrew wants you to handle it then I'm happy to give you an Acked-by for it. Regards, Paul.