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

quoted

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