[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Wed, 4 Apr 2018 09:54:41 -0600
From: Logan Gunthorpe <logang@...tatee.com>
To: Michael Ellerman <mpe@...erman.id.au>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-arch@...r.kernel.org,
linux-ntb@...glegroups.com, linux-crypto@...r.kernel.org,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
akpm@...ux-foundation.org
Cc: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@...il.com>,
Horia Geantă <horia.geanta@....com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v15 0/9] Add io{read|write}64 to io-64-atomic headers
On 4/4/2018 4:38 AM, Michael Ellerman wrote:
> What's the plan for getting it merged? Seems we don't have one?
Yeah, so far there is no plan. I'm not really sure who's attention I
need to get or how to get it.
> Given it touches two arches and generic stuff and drivers and crypto,
> it's a bit of a mess to merge. It's not really something I want to merge
> via the powerpc tree.
Understood.
> Is there any way to split it? I couldn't immediately see what the hard
> dependencies were between the patches.
Yes, a couple of patches have already been taken by their maintainers
over the last few cycles.
> eg. It looks like I could take the two powerpc patches on their own for
> 4.17, and then the rest could go via other trees?
Yup! If you can take the powerpc patches I can keep trying to get the
rest in. They are largely independent and shouldn't really change
anything without the following patches.
> Is patch 1 stand alone?
Essentially, yes, but patch 5 depends on it seeing it's changing the
same area and is trying to avoid creating the same kbuild warnings that
patch 1 suppresses.
> The other option is to ask Andrew Morton to take it, as he often carries
> these cross-tree type series.
Thanks for the tip! I'll copy him when I repost it after the merge window.
Logan
Powered by blists - more mailing lists