Hey, Christoph. On Mon, Aug 26, 2013 at 03:21:56PM +0000, Christoph Lameter wrote: > On Fri, 23 Aug 2013, Tejun Heo wrote: > > > * It would be a lot easier to route the patches if each had cc's to > > the maintainers of the affected subsystems. > > So the drivers patch needs to CC all driver maintainers? There usually is a maintainer for a whole lot of similar drivers - one for infiniband, one for v4l and so on, so the list usually isn't that long. > There must be some easier way to get this done. It can be consolidated and pushed as a single series either through the percpu tree or -mm but it still at least needs to inform the people working on the affected code and get the confirmations where possible. > Not sure how to do this. Thats why its an RFC. I cced Andrew because he > usually knows how to deal with massive patches like this. It can go two ways. * Split further so that the patches can be merged through separate branches so that they converge on the next merge window where the leftovers can be taken care of and further dependent changes merged. * Get acks from most maintainers and push the changes as a single series through either percpu tree or -mm. The benefits of going through -mm is that -mm floats on top of all changes scheduled for the next merge window, so if the changes in question are likely to conflict with other changes in various subsystems scheduled for the next merge window, -mm is easier. Given the nature of the changes, I don't think going through percpu or -mm would make much difference. Thanks. -- tejun -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-arch" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
