Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > linux.kernel > #1330004 > unrolled thread

Re: [PATCH v3 0/2] Consolidate redundant register/stack access code

Back to article view | Back to linux.kernel

This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.

Contents

  Re: [PATCH v3 0/2] Consolidate redundant register/stack access code Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org> - 2016-02-09 10:50 +0100
    Re: [PATCH v3 0/2] Consolidate redundant register/stack access code David Long <dave.long@linaro.org> - 2016-02-09 22:00 +0100
      Re: [PATCH v3 0/2] Consolidate redundant register/stack access code Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org> - 2016-02-17 10:50 +0100

#1330004 — Re: [PATCH v3 0/2] Consolidate redundant register/stack access code

* Michael Ellerman <mpe@ellerman.id.au> wrote:

> On Tue, 2016-02-09 at 00:38 -0500, David Long wrote:
> 
> > From: "David A. Long" <dave.long@linaro.org>
> >
> > Move duplicate and functionally equivalent code for accessing registers
> > and stack (CONFIG_HAVE_REGS_AND_STACK_ACCESS_API) from arch subdirs into
> > common kernel files.
> >
> > I'm sending this out again (with updated distribution list) because v2
> > just never got pulled in, even though I don't think there were any
> > outstanding issues.
> 
> A big cross arch patch like this would often get taken by Andrew Morton, but
> AFAICS you didn't CC him - so I just added him, perhaps he'll pick it up for
> us :D

The other problem is that the second patch is commingling changes to 6 separate 
architectures:

 16 files changed, 106 insertions(+), 343 deletions(-)

that should probably be 6 separate patches. Easier to review, easier to bisect to, 
easier to revert, etc.

Thanks,

	Ingo

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#1330653

On 02/09/2016 04:45 AM, Ingo Molnar wrote:
>
> * Michael Ellerman <mpe@ellerman.id.au> wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 2016-02-09 at 00:38 -0500, David Long wrote:
>>
>>> From: "David A. Long" <dave.long@linaro.org>
>>>
>>> Move duplicate and functionally equivalent code for accessing registers
>>> and stack (CONFIG_HAVE_REGS_AND_STACK_ACCESS_API) from arch subdirs into
>>> common kernel files.
>>>
>>> I'm sending this out again (with updated distribution list) because v2
>>> just never got pulled in, even though I don't think there were any
>>> outstanding issues.
>>
>> A big cross arch patch like this would often get taken by Andrew Morton, but
>> AFAICS you didn't CC him - so I just added him, perhaps he'll pick it up for
>> us :D
>
> The other problem is that the second patch is commingling changes to 6 separate
> architectures:
>
>   16 files changed, 106 insertions(+), 343 deletions(-)
>
> that should probably be 6 separate patches. Easier to review, easier to bisect to,
> easier to revert, etc.
>
> Thanks,
>
> 	Ingo
>

I see your point but I'm not sure it could have been broken into 
separate successive patches that would each build for all architectures.

-dl

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1336179

* David Long <dave.long@linaro.org> wrote:

> On 02/09/2016 04:45 AM, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> >
> >* Michael Ellerman <mpe@ellerman.id.au> wrote:
> >
> >>On Tue, 2016-02-09 at 00:38 -0500, David Long wrote:
> >>
> >>>From: "David A. Long" <dave.long@linaro.org>
> >>>
> >>>Move duplicate and functionally equivalent code for accessing registers
> >>>and stack (CONFIG_HAVE_REGS_AND_STACK_ACCESS_API) from arch subdirs into
> >>>common kernel files.
> >>>
> >>>I'm sending this out again (with updated distribution list) because v2
> >>>just never got pulled in, even though I don't think there were any
> >>>outstanding issues.
> >>
> >>A big cross arch patch like this would often get taken by Andrew Morton, but
> >>AFAICS you didn't CC him - so I just added him, perhaps he'll pick it up for
> >>us :D
> >
> >The other problem is that the second patch is commingling changes to 6 separate
> >architectures:
> >
> >  16 files changed, 106 insertions(+), 343 deletions(-)
> >
> >that should probably be 6 separate patches. Easier to review, easier to bisect to,
> >easier to revert, etc.
> >
> >Thanks,
> >
> >	Ingo
> >
> 
> I see your point but I'm not sure it could have been broken into separate 
> successive patches that would each build for all architectures.

Why? AFAICS all the functionality appears to be conditional on 
CONFIG_HAVE_REGS_AND_STACK_ACCESS_API, so it ought to build standalone as well, on 
a per arch basis, as long as the core kernel patch is applied first.

Thanks,

	Ingo

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | linux.kernel

csiph-web