On Tue, 2014-02-25 at 11:42 -0800, H. Peter Anvin 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. 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> >
I going to send out a v5 with the arm bits dropped and Ack-bys added. There is still some work left there, so I think I'll redo the arm bits separately after once the common bits are in the kernel. Peter, is your Acked-by only for "[3/6] x86: use generic early_ioremap"? Or did you intend "[1/6] x86/mm: sparse warning fix for early_memremap" and/or "[2/6] mm: create generic early_ioremap() support" also? -- 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/
