Message ID | 20230522105049.1467313-1-schnelle@linux.ibm.com (mailing list archive) |
---|---|
Headers | show |
Series | treewide: Remove I/O port accessors for HAS_IOPORT=n | expand |
On Mon, May 22, 2023, at 12:50, Niklas Schnelle wrote: > A few patches have already been applied but I've kept those which are not yet > in v6.4-rc3. > > This version is based on v6.4-rc3 and is also available on my kernel.org tree > in the has_ioport_v5: > > https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/niks/linux.git I think it would be best if as many patches as possible get merged into v6.5 through the individidual subsystems, though I can take whatever is left through the asm-generic tree. Since the goal is to have maintainers pick up part of this, I would recommend splitting the series per subsystem, having either a separate patch or a small series for each maintainer that should pick them up. More importantly, I think you should rebase the series against linux-next in order to find and drop the patches that are queued up for 6.5 already. The patches will be applied into branches that are based on 6.4-rc of course, but basing on linux-next is usually the easiest when targeting multiple maintainer trees. Maybe let's give it another week to have more maintainers pick up stuff from v5, and then send out a v6 as separate submissions. Arnd
On Mon, 22 May 2023 12:50:05 +0200, Niklas Schnelle wrote: > Some platforms such as s390 do not support PCI I/O spaces. On such platforms > I/O space accessors like inb()/outb() are stubs that can never actually work. > The way these stubs are implemented in asm-generic/io.h leads to compiler > warnings because any use will be a NULL pointer access on these platforms. In > a previous patch we tried handling this with a run-time warning on access. This > approach however was rejected by Linus[0] with the argument that this really > should be a compile-time check and, though a much more invasive change, we > believe that is indeed the right approach. > > [...] Applied to 6.5/scsi-queue, thanks! [21/44] mpt fusion: add HAS_IOPORT dependencies https://git.kernel.org/mkp/scsi/c/c3f903472ffa [31/44] scsi: add HAS_IOPORT dependencies https://git.kernel.org/mkp/scsi/c/b58b2ba351b0
On Mon, 2023-05-22 at 13:29 +0200, Arnd Bergmann wrote: > On Mon, May 22, 2023, at 12:50, Niklas Schnelle wrote: > > > A few patches have already been applied but I've kept those which are not yet > > in v6.4-rc3. > > > > This version is based on v6.4-rc3 and is also available on my kernel.org tree > > in the has_ioport_v5: > > > > https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/niks/linux.git > > I think it would be best if as many patches as possible get merged > into v6.5 through the individidual subsystems, though I can take > whatever is left through the asm-generic tree. > > Since the goal is to have maintainers pick up part of this, I would > recommend splitting the series per subsystem, having either a > separate patch or a small series for each maintainer that should > pick them up. > > More importantly, I think you should rebase the series against > linux-next in order to find and drop the patches that are queued > up for 6.5 already. The patches will be applied into branches > that are based on 6.4-rc of course, but basing on linux-next > is usually the easiest when targeting multiple maintainer > trees. > > Maybe let's give it another week to have more maintainers pick > up stuff from v5, and then send out a v6 as separate submissions. > > Arnd Hi Arnd and All, I'm sorry there hasn't been an updated in a long time and we're missing v6.5. I've been quite busy with other work and life. Speaking of, I will be mostly out for around a month starting some time mid to end July as, if all goes well, I'm expecting to become a dad. That said, I haven't forgotten about this and your overall plan of sending per- subsystem patches sounds good, just haven't had the time to also incorporate the feedback. Thanks, Niklas
On Tue, Jun 27, 2023, at 11:12, Niklas Schnelle wrote: > On Mon, 2023-05-22 at 13:29 +0200, Arnd Bergmann wrote: >> >> Maybe let's give it another week to have more maintainers pick >> up stuff from v5, and then send out a v6 as separate submissions. >> >> Arnd > > Hi Arnd and All, > > I'm sorry there hasn't been an updated in a long time and we're missing > v6.5. I've been quite busy with other work and life. Speaking of, I > will be mostly out for around a month starting some time mid to end > July as, if all goes well, I'm expecting to become a dad. That said, I > haven't forgotten about this and your overall plan of sending per- > subsystem patches sounds good, just haven't had the time to also > incorporate the feedback. Ok, thanks for letting us know. I just checked to see that about half of your series has already made it into linux-next and is likely to be part of v6.5 or already in v6.4. Maybe you can start out by taking a pass at just resending the ones that don't need any changes and can just get picked up after -rc1, and then I'll try to have a look at whatever remains after that. Arnd
On Tue, 2023-06-27 at 14:53 +0200, Arnd Bergmann wrote: > On Tue, Jun 27, 2023, at 11:12, Niklas Schnelle wrote: > > On Mon, 2023-05-22 at 13:29 +0200, Arnd Bergmann wrote: > > > > > > Maybe let's give it another week to have more maintainers pick > > > up stuff from v5, and then send out a v6 as separate submissions. > > > > > > Arnd > > > > Hi Arnd and All, > > > > I'm sorry there hasn't been an updated in a long time and we're missing > > v6.5. I've been quite busy with other work and life. Speaking of, I > > will be mostly out for around a month starting some time mid to end > > July as, if all goes well, I'm expecting to become a dad. That said, I > > haven't forgotten about this and your overall plan of sending per- > > subsystem patches sounds good, just haven't had the time to also > > incorporate the feedback. > > Ok, thanks for letting us know. I just checked to see that about half > of your series has already made it into linux-next and is likely to > be part of v6.5 or already in v6.4. > > Maybe you can start out by taking a pass at just resending the ones > that don't need any changes and can just get picked up after -rc1, > and then I'll try to have a look at whatever remains after that. > > Arnd Oh yeah looks better than I anticipated. I seem to have picked an odd base commit for "tty: serial: .." because of which Greg couldn't apply it so res-ending + rebase might be enough for that. By my count it looks like only "usb: pci-quirksL ..." needs real work and possibly the "drm: .." part though the discussion around cirrus doesn't look like it would require much work. So I'll do rebase/re-send of the easy ones tomorrow/next week. Thanks, Niklas