On 21.02.23 21:13, Dave Hansen wrote:
On 2/21/23 00:38, David Hildenbrand wrote:> Sure, for my taste this is
(1) too repetitive (2) too verbose (3) to
specialized. But whatever x86 maintainers prefer.
At this point, I'm not going to be too nitpicky. I personally think we
need to get _something_ merged. We can then nitpick it to death once
its in the tree.
Yes, but ... do we have to rush right now?
This series wasn't in -next and we're in the merge window. Is the plan
to still include it into this merge window?
Also, I think concise patch descriptions and comments are not
necessarily nitpicking like "please rename that variable".
So I prefer whatever will move the set along. ;)
If the plan is to merge it in the next merge window (which I suspect,
but I might be wrong), I suggest including it in -next fairly soonish,
and in the meantime, polish the remaining bits.
Knowing the plan would be good ;)
--
Thanks,
David / dhildenb
