On Tue, Sep 23, 2014 at 10:36:03AM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote: > * Josh Triplett <josh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > I've dropped tiny/no-io from tiny/next; I'll poke at it further > > and resubmit for the x86 tree later, likely not for the next > > merge window at this point. > > > > Thanks for the feedback on process; this is day 1 of having a > > merge-window-bound tree in -next for the first time. :) > > Sorry about the harshness of my initial email - I was unsure > about the background and we are close to the merge window. I have > no objections against the -tiny tree in linux-next, it's a good > effort. > > I think we could cut down on the #ifdef uglies if we made the > ioperm callback pointer unconditional. That's just a tiny amount > of extra bloat, but should remove half of the #ifdefs or so? The > rest of the patches look fine. I've revised the patch to eliminate quite a few #ifdefs, and in particular almost all of those in .c files, by adding a macro INIT_SET_IOPL_MASK to use in place of the initializer for set_iopl_mask, and using __maybe_unused rather than wrapping function definitions in #ifdef. I'll send a new version momentarily. > Usually hpa handles the x86 ioperm area, but he's swamped right > now, so I'll look at picking them up once you have submitted the > latest version. If you send it in the next day or two then they > could make the v3.18 merge window. Other things came up (LinuxCon / Plumbers), but hopefully the new version can go into 3.19. - Josh Triplett -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-next" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
