On 25 Feb 2014, at 19:42, H. Peter Anvin <h...@zytor.com> wrote: > 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.
I’m ok with the arm64 patches to go through -tip with my ack on all patches: Acked-by: Catalin Marinas <catalin.mari...@arm.com> > 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> Thanks. Either way works for me. I think the series still need an ack from rmk at least on the arm patch (4/6). Catalin-- 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/
