Messages in this thread | | | Date | Thu, 19 Feb 2009 15:14:09 -0800 | From | Andrew Morton <> | Subject | Re: [PATCHv2 00/11]Get rid of all the old macro DMA_nBIT_MASK and use DMA_BIT_MASK(n) instead |
| |
On Thu, 19 Feb 2009 16:08:51 +0100 Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu> wrote:
> > * Stefan Richter <stefanr@s5r6.in-berlin.de> wrote: > > > Yang Hongyang wrote: > > > v1->v2:fix s/micro/macro typo and keep the old defines > > > of DMA_nBIT_MASK > > > ---------------------- > > > Replace all DMA_nBIT_MASK macro with the new DMA_BIT_MASK(n) macro > > > > > > 01:Replace all DMA_64BIT_MASK macro with DMA_BIT_MASK(64) > > > 02:Replace all DMA_48BIT_MASK macro with DMA_BIT_MASK(48) > > > 03:Replace all DMA_40BIT_MASK macro with DMA_BIT_MASK(40) > > > 04:Replace all DMA_39BIT_MASK macro with DMA_BIT_MASK(39) > > > 05:Replace all DMA_35BIT_MASK macro with DMA_BIT_MASK(35) > > > 06:Replace all DMA_32BIT_MASK macro with DMA_BIT_MASK(32) > > > 07:Replace all DMA_31BIT_MASK macro with DMA_BIT_MASK(31) > > > 08:Replace all DMA_30BIT_MASK macro with DMA_BIT_MASK(30) > > > 09:Replace all DMA_28BIT_MASK macro with DMA_BIT_MASK(28) > > > 10:Replace all DMA_24BIT_MASK macro with DMA_BIT_MASK(24) > > > 11:Update the old macro DMA_nBIT_MASK related documentations > > > > > > > Shouldn't you organize the patch series per subsystem, not per old > > macro? And then Cc the respective maintainers? > > > > As it stands, the patches cannot be routed through the normal channels; > > yet there is no fundamental reason to handle these patches differently > > from normal patches. > > Traditionally such trivially correct convert-it-all patches > lived in -mm and were merged upstream in one go, near the end of > the merge window. > > Sprinkling it into dozens of subsystem channels (some of which > are very unreliable) is neither good nor an economic use of our > resources. > > Patches that can potentially cause trouble should go via the > usual channels. >
yes, fun.
I hit several rejects merging these, easily fixed. After this lot is merged there will probably be a few unconverted sites which will need a second pass. After that we can think about removing the old #defines.
| |