lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2017]   [Jun]   [29]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH RFC 25/26] tile: Remove spin_unlock_wait() arch-specific definitions
On Thu, Jun 29, 2017 at 05:10:41PM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 29, 2017 at 5:06 PM, Linus Torvalds
> <torvalds@linux-foundation.org> wrote:
> >
> > Please don't make this one commit fopr every architecture.
> >
> > Once something gets removed, it gets removed. There's no point in
> > "remove it from architecture X". If there are no more users, we're
> > done with it, and making it be 25 patches with the same commit message
> > instead of just one doesn't help anybody.
>
> Just to clarify: I think the actual *users* are worth doing one by
> one, particularly if there are user-specific explanations of what that
> particular code wanted, and why spin_unlock_wait() doesn't really
> help.

Got it, and I did merge -only- the arch-specific definition removals
into one commit. Should I also merge the core-code definition removals
into that same commit, or is it OK to remove the core-code definitions
with one commit and the arch-specific definitions with another.

(My guess is that you would prefer I removed -all- definitions with one
commit, including the core-kernel definitions, but at this point I figure
I should just ask.)

> And I think that you actually have those per-user insights by now,
> after looking at the long thread.

One Acked-by thus far, so some progress!

> So I'm not saying "do one patch for the whole series". One patch per
> removal of use is fine - in fact preferred.

Got it. It allows the developers and maintainers to tell me where my
analysis is wrong, for one thing. ;-)

> But once there are no actual more users, just remove all the
> architecture definitions in one go, because explaining the same thing
> several times doesn't actually help anything.
>
> In fact, *if* we end up ever resurrecting that thing, it's good if we
> can resurrect it in one go. Then we can resurrect the one or two users
> that turned out to matter after all and could come up with why some
> particular ordering was ok too.

Understood!

Thanx, Paul

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2017-06-30 02:26    [W:0.098 / U:1.948 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site