On Wed, Feb 26, 2025 at 12:38:51PM -0800, Andrew Morton wrote: > On Wed, 26 Feb 2025 11:29:53 +0000 Mark Brown <broonie@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > On Tue, Feb 25, 2025 at 08:17:14PM +0000, Easwar Hariharan wrote: > > > This is the second series (part 1*) that converts users of msecs_to_jiffies() that > > > either use the multiply pattern of either of: > > > - msecs_to_jiffies(N*1000) or > > > - msecs_to_jiffies(N*MSEC_PER_SEC) > > > > > > where N is a constant or an expression, to avoid the multiplication. > > > > Please don't combine patches for multiple subsystems into a single > > series if there's no dependencies between them, it just creates > > confusion about how things get merged, problems for tooling and makes > > everything more noisy. It's best to split things up per subsystem in > > that case. > > I asked for this. I'll merge everything, spend a few weeks gathering > up maintainer acks. Anything which a subsystem maintainer merges will > be reported by Stephen and I'll drop that particular patch. I'm removing this from my queue then and let it go through your tree. Cheers, Carlos > > This way, nothing gets lost. I take this approach often and it works. > > If these were sent as a bunch of individual patches then it would be up > to the sender to keep track of what has been merged and what hasn't. > That person will be resending some stragglers many times. Until they > give up and some patches get permanently lost. > > Scale all that across many senders and the whole process becomes costly > and unreliable. Whereas centralizing it on akpm is more efficient, > more reliable, more scalable, lower latency and less frustrating for > senders. >
