Messages in this thread | | | Date | Thu, 29 Jun 2017 17:24:46 -0700 | From | "Paul E. McKenney" <> | Subject | Re: [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
| |