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@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> 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
