Messages in this thread | | | Date | Thu, 13 Aug 2009 09:41:31 +0200 | From | Ingo Molnar <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH -v2 0/7] powerpc: use asm-generic/dma-mapping-common.h |
| |
* FUJITA Tomonori <fujita.tomonori@lab.ntt.co.jp> wrote:
> On Thu, 13 Aug 2009 15:48:42 +1000 > Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@kernel.crashing.org> wrote: > > > On Wed, 2009-08-05 at 14:08 +0900, FUJITA Tomonori wrote: > > > > > The above swiotlb patchset was merged in -tip so I think that merging > > > this patchset via -tip too is the easiest way to handle this patchset. > > > > > > The patchset also is available via a git tree: > > > > > > git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/tomo/linux-2.6-misc.git powerpc > > > > Hi ! > > > > While I generally agree here with the patches, I'm not sure it should be > > merged via -tip since it mostly touches arch/powerpc files (and I need > > to review it a bit more carefully, hopefully you'll have Ack's hitting > > your mailbox later today). > > Thanks! > > This patchset depends on my swiotlb cleanup patchset: > > git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/tomo/linux-2.6-misc.git swiotlb > > http://marc.info/?l=linux-ia64&m=124718816520156&w=2 > > My swiotlb cleanup patchset has been in -tip. It might be easier > to merge both the swiotlb patchset and this patchset in powerpc > tree?
Ben, what's your preference? I waited for your reaction with these bits, i.e. they are not in tip:core/iommu yet.
One variant would be what Fujita suggested: you could pull core/iommu as a basis (it's a well-tested, problem-free tree at the moment, with no big risky items), and then pull/apply the powerpc specific bits from Fujita.
A second variant would be that we could pull these bits into core/iommu ... albeit you are right that the PowerPC tree is much better at testing PowerPC patches.
A third variant would be to wait with these bits until the swiotlb bits in core/iommu hit upstream. This would increase patch latency.
Any of these variants is good to me. What Fujita suggests seems to be the best to me: #1 gets us the most testing and the lowest latency - at the cost of tree dependency. We wont rebase core/iommu.
[ We've got three good tree properties: "tree independence", "good testing", "low patch latency", but we cannot have all three at once, we must pick two of them ;-) ]
Ingo
| |