From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753019AbZHMIKK (ORCPT ); Thu, 13 Aug 2009 04:10:10 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1752686AbZHMIKJ (ORCPT ); Thu, 13 Aug 2009 04:10:09 -0400 Received: from gate.crashing.org ([63.228.1.57]:34746 "EHLO gate.crashing.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751772AbZHMIKH (ORCPT ); Thu, 13 Aug 2009 04:10:07 -0400 Subject: Re: [PATCH -v2 0/7] powerpc: use asm-generic/dma-mapping-common.h From: Benjamin Herrenschmidt To: Ingo Molnar Cc: FUJITA Tomonori , linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org, galak@kernel.crashing.orga, beckyb@kernel.crashing.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org In-Reply-To: <20090813074131.GH12143@elte.hu> References: <1249448908-18985-1-git-send-email-fujita.tomonori@lab.ntt.co.jp> <1250142522.3587.110.camel@pasglop> <20090813160625B.fujita.tomonori@lab.ntt.co.jp> <20090813074131.GH12143@elte.hu> Content-Type: text/plain Date: Thu, 13 Aug 2009 18:09:41 +1000 Message-Id: <1250150981.3587.157.camel@pasglop> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.26.1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org > Ben, what's your preference? I waited for your reaction with these > bits, i.e. they are not in tip:core/iommu yet. Oh I though they were... discard my previous private mail about missing Ack's then :-) I'll review them more in depth hopefully tomorrow but they look good. > One variant would be what Fujita suggested: you could pull > core/iommu as a basis (it's a well-tested, problem-free tree at the > moment, with no big risky items), and then pull/apply the powerpc > specific bits from Fujita. Or we can have the patches in core/iommu and I pull the whole thing in powerpc-next. My main concern isn't which tree they go through but that they are in powerpc-next for better testing. Cheers, Ben. > A second variant would be that we could pull these bits into > core/iommu ... albeit you are right that the PowerPC tree is much > better at testing PowerPC patches. > > A third variant would be to wait with these bits until the swiotlb > bits in core/iommu hit upstream. This would increase patch latency. > > Any of these variants is good to me. What Fujita suggests seems to > be the best to me: #1 gets us the most testing and the lowest > latency - at the cost of tree dependency. We wont rebase core/iommu. > > [ We've got three good tree properties: "tree independence", > "good testing", "low patch latency", but we cannot have all > three at once, we must pick two of them ;-) ] > > Ingo