On 02/25/2014 10:45 AM, Mark Salter wrote: > On Tue, 2014-02-25 at 18:30 +0000, Will Deacon wrote: >> I'd suggest spitting the core part out from the arch-specific parts. That >> way, the core part can merged independently and architectures can move over >> as they see fit. It also signals (at least to me) that, "hey, I should >> probably review this" whilst my current stance is "there's a whole load of >> stuff under mm/ that needs to be acked first". >> >> If you put the whole thing into next, you just run the risk of conflicts >> with all the arch trees. > > I've been thinking of breaking out the common bits and x86 bits and just > going with that for now. There's no point in just doing the common bits > because it won't get tested without at least one architecture using it. >
If you think it makes sense we could take the common bits + x86 and put them through the -tip tree. The other option would be to put the whole thread in linux-next with Acks. As far as x86 is concerned it looks like it is mostly just code movement, so I'm happy giving my: Acked-by: H. Peter Anvin <h...@linux.intel.com> -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
