Re: [PATCH v2 00/21] Converge on using secs_to_jiffies()

[Easwar Hariharan <eahariha@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On 11/15/2024 1:41 PM, Jeff Johnson wrote:
> On 11/15/2024 1:29 PM, Easwar Hariharan wrote:
>> On 11/15/2024 1:26 PM, Easwar Hariharan wrote:
>>> This is a series that follows up on my previous series to introduce
>>> secs_to_jiffies() and convert a few initial users.[1] In the review for
>>> that series, Anna-Maria requested converting other users with
>>> Coccinelle. This is part 1 that converts users of msecs_to_jiffies()
>>> that use the multiply pattern of either of:
>>> - msecs_to_jiffies(N*1000), or
>>> - msecs_to_jiffies(N*MSEC_PER_SEC)
>>>
>>> The entire conversion is made with Coccinelle in the script added in
>>> patch 2. Some changes suggested by Coccinelle have been deferred to
>>> later parts that will address other possible variant patterns.
>>>
>>> CC: Anna-Maria Behnsen <anna-maria@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>>> Signed-off-by: Easwar Hariharan <eahariha@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>>>
>>> [1] https://lore.kernel.org/all/20241030-open-coded-timeouts-v3-0-9ba123facf88@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx/
>>> [2] https://lore.kernel.org/all/8734kngfni.fsf@somnus/
>>>
>>> ---
>>> Changes in v2:
>>> - EDITME: describe what is new in this series revision.
>>> - EDITME: use bulletpoints and terse descriptions.
>>> - Link to v1: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20241115-converge-secs-to-jiffies-v1-0-19aadc34941b@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>>
>>
>> Apologies, I missed out on editing the changelog here. v1 included a
>> patch that's already been accepted, there are no other changes in v2.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Easwar
> 
> How do you expect this series to land since it overlaps a large number of
> maintainer trees? Do you have a maintainer who has volunteered to take the
> series and the maintainers should just ack? Or do you want the maintainers to
> take the individual patches that are applicable to them?
> 
> /jeff

I am hoping for tglx to take it through his tree since the patch
introducing secs_to_jiffies() is in his tree, so sequencing of
dependencies would not be an issue.

But if tglx won't, we could push it out another cycle and individual
maintainers can take the patches that are applicable to their tree for
the series.

Thanks,
Easwar