Re: [PATCH v3 00/16] Converge on using secs_to_jiffies() part two

[Carlos Maiolino <cem@xxxxxxxxxx>]

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.
>