Ira Weiny [off-list ref] writes:

+ Konstantin

Michael Ellerman wrote:

quoted

Ira Weiny [off-list ref] writes:

quoted

Dave Hansen wrote:

quoted

On 3/15/23 16:20, Ira Weiny wrote:

quoted

Commit 21b56c847753 ("iov_iter: get rid of separate bvec and xarray 
callbacks") removed the calls to memcpy_page_flushcache().

kmap_atomic() is deprecated and used in the x86 version of
memcpy_page_flushcache().

Remove the unnecessary memcpy_page_flushcache() call from all arch's.

Hi Ira,

Since the common code user is already gone these three patches seem
quite independent.  It seems like the right thing to do is have
individual arch maintainers cherry pick their arch patch and carry it
independently.

Yes.

quoted

Is there a compelling reason to have someone pick up and carry these all
together that I'm missing?

No reason.  Would you like me to submit them individually?

I'll just grab the powerpc one from the thread, no need to resend.

Thanks.

quoted

quoted

Sorry, submitting them separately crossed my mind when I wrote them but I
kind of forgot as they were all on the same branch and I was waiting for
after the merge window to submit them.

It's also much easier to run git-send-email HEAD^^^, rather than running
it three separate times, let alone if it's a 20 patch series.

Exactly.  And I'm using b4 which would have forced me to create a separate
branch for each of the patches to track.  So I was keeping them around in
a single branch to let 0day run after the merge window.  Then I forgot
about the idea of splitting them because b4 had it all packaged up nice!

quoted

I wonder if we could come up with some convention to indicate that a
series is made up of independent patches, and maintainers are free to
pick them individually - but still sent as a single series.

Maybe.  But perhaps b4 could have a send option which would split them
out?  I'll see about adding an option to b4 but I've Cc'ed Konstantin as
well for the idea.

Yes you're right that's probably a better idea. b4 to the rescue!

cheers