[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <35e4a4cb-29f2-2de6-6350-1358d4968a54@huawei.com>
Date: Tue, 30 Nov 2021 14:22:07 +0800
From: Kefeng Wang <wangkefeng.wang@...wei.com>
To: Dennis Zhou <dennis@...nel.org>
CC: <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>, <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
<linux-mm@...ck.org>, <tj@...nel.org>,
<gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>, <cl@...ux.com>,
<catalin.marinas@....com>, <will@...nel.org>,
<tsbogend@...ha.franken.de>, <mpe@...erman.id.au>,
<benh@...nel.crashing.org>, <paulus@...ba.org>,
<paul.walmsley@...ive.com>, <palmer@...belt.com>,
<aou@...s.berkeley.edu>, <davem@...emloft.net>,
<tglx@...utronix.de>, <mingo@...hat.com>, <bp@...en8.de>,
<dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>, <hpa@...or.com>,
<linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
<linux-ia64@...r.kernel.org>, <linux-mips@...r.kernel.org>,
<linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org>, <linux-riscv@...ts.infradead.org>,
<sparclinux@...r.kernel.org>, <x86@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC 1/4] mm: percpu: Generalize percpu related config
On 2021/11/30 6:36, Dennis Zhou wrote:
> Hello,
>
> On Sun, Nov 21, 2021 at 05:35:54PM +0800, Kefeng Wang wrote:
>> The HAVE_SETUP_PER_CPU_AREA/NEED_PER_CPU_EMBED_FIRST_CHUNK/
>> NEED_PER_CPU_PAGE_FIRST_CHUNK/USE_PERCPU_NUMA_NODE_ID configs,
>> which has duplicate definitions on platforms that subscribe it.
>>
>> Move them into mm, drop these redundant definitions and instead
>> just select it on applicable platforms.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Kefeng Wang <wangkefeng.wang@...wei.com>
>> ---
>> arch/arm64/Kconfig | 20 ++++----------------
>> arch/ia64/Kconfig | 9 ++-------
>> arch/mips/Kconfig | 10 ++--------
>> arch/powerpc/Kconfig | 17 ++++-------------
>> arch/riscv/Kconfig | 10 ++--------
>> arch/sparc/Kconfig | 12 +++---------
>> arch/x86/Kconfig | 17 ++++-------------
>> mm/Kconfig | 12 ++++++++++++
>> 8 files changed, 33 insertions(+), 74 deletions(-)
...
>>
> This makes sense and looks good. A series like this is a little tricky.
> The latter patches change the contracts so it'd be easiest to run it
> through my tree. We'd need to get explicit acks from each arch
> maintainer to make sure they're fine with this.
Got it, I will resend without RFC and hope to get ACKs from related arch
maintainers.
>
> Thanks,
> Dennis
> .
Powered by blists - more mailing lists