* FUJITA Tomonori [off-list ref] wrote:

On Thu, 13 Aug 2009 15:48:42 +1000
Benjamin Herrenschmidt [off-list ref] wrote:

quoted

On Wed, 2009-08-05 at 14:08 +0900, FUJITA Tomonori wrote:

quoted

The above swiotlb patchset was merged in -tip so I think that merging
this patchset via -tip too is the easiest way to handle this patchset.

The patchset also is available via a git tree:

git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/tomo/linux-2.6-misc.git powerpc

Hi !

While I generally agree here with the patches, I'm not sure it should be
merged via -tip since it mostly touches arch/powerpc files (and I need
to review it a bit more carefully, hopefully you'll have Ack's hitting
your mailbox later today).

Thanks!

This patchset depends on my swiotlb cleanup patchset:

git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/tomo/linux-2.6-misc.git swiotlb

http://marc.info/?l=linux-ia64&m=124718816520156&w=2

My swiotlb cleanup patchset has been in -tip. It might be easier 
to merge both the swiotlb patchset and this patchset in powerpc 
tree?

Ben, what's your preference? I waited for your reaction with these 
bits, i.e. they are not in tip:core/iommu yet.

One variant would be what Fujita suggested: you could pull 
core/iommu as a basis (it's a well-tested, problem-free tree at the 
moment, with no big risky items), and then pull/apply the powerpc 
specific bits from Fujita.

A second variant would be that we could pull these bits into 
core/iommu ... albeit you are right that the PowerPC tree is much 
better at testing PowerPC patches.

A third variant would be to wait with these bits until the swiotlb 
bits in core/iommu hit upstream. This would increase patch latency.

Any of these variants is good to me. What Fujita suggests seems to 
be the best to me: #1 gets us the most testing and the lowest 
latency - at the cost of tree dependency. We wont rebase core/iommu.

[ We've got three good tree properties: "tree independence",
  "good testing", "low patch latency", but we cannot have all
  three at once, we must pick two of them ;-) ]

	Ingo