[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <537F736F.4070002@zytor.com>
Date: Fri, 23 May 2014 09:12:31 -0700
From: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
CC: Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>,
"linux-arch@...r.kernel.org" <linux-arch@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"arnd@...db.de" <arnd@...db.de>,
"monstr@...str.eu" <monstr@...str.eu>,
"dhowells@...hat.com" <dhowells@...hat.com>,
"broonie@...aro.org" <broonie@...aro.org>,
"benh@...nel.crashing.org" <benh@...nel.crashing.org>,
"paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 16/18] x86: io: implement dummy relaxed accessor macros
for writes
On 05/23/2014 08:56 AM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Fri, May 23, 2014 at 08:43:01AM -0700, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
>> On 05/23/2014 08:34 AM, Will Deacon wrote:
>>>
>>> There is also a documentation patch [1] in this series but,
>>> again, I didn't CC everybody on it. Sorry, but the level of
>>> interest this sort of stuff generates amongst kernel developers
>>> is close to zero so I only included people I thought cared on
>>> CC for the entire series. I'm stuck between a rock and a hard
>>> place trying to CC interested people whilst at the same time
>>> trying to avoid spamming all the arch maintainers.
>>>
>>
>> If you are sending me a patch, please include me on the cover
>> letter for the patch series. You don't have to send me the
>> entire patch series (although for something like a Documentation
>> patch which affects x86 I would consider including the union list
>> as well.)
>>
>> I think regardless of level of interest, the definition of
>> cross-architectural operations is exactly the arch maintainers
>> job, so it isn't really out of place to "spam" us...
>
> So the one issue I had with that, is that if one tries to send an
> email to all arch maintainers + linux-arch + linux-kernel, the
> header gets too big and vger chokes and davem slaps you.
>
> So while its possibly desirable to do big unions with 0/xx and the
> like, its practically infeasible.
>
... or at least requires the use of a particular advanced technology
called Bcc:. Not that I like Bcc:s, mind you, but it is probably
better in this case.
I have no idea how smart vger is, but it would be interesting if it
could ignore addresses from the MAINTAINERS list...
-hpa
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists