| Message ID | 1471128518-24075-1-git-send-email-deepa.kernel@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| State | Not Applicable |
| Headers | show |
On Sat, Aug 13, 2016 at 03:48:12PM -0700, Deepa Dinamani wrote: > The series is aimed at getting rid of CURRENT_TIME and CURRENT_TIME_SEC macros. > The macros are not y2038 safe. There is no plan to transition them into being > y2038 safe. > ktime_get_* api's can be used in their place. And, these are y2038 safe. Who are you execting to pull this huge patch series? Why not just introduce the new api call, wait for that to be merged, and then push the individual patches through the different subsystems? After half of those get ignored, then provide a single set of patches that can go through Andrew or my trees. thanks, greg k-h
Thank you for the suggestion. > Who are you execting to pull this huge patch series? The last pull request was addressed to Al as per Arnd's suggestion. I'm not completely sure who should it be addressed to. > Why not just introduce the new api call, wait for that to be merged, and > then push the individual patches through the different subsystems? > After half of those get ignored, then provide a single set of patches > that can go through Andrew or my trees. Arnd and I tried to do this a few ways. We can try to introduce the api first like you suggest. There are a few Acks already on the patches. And, patches 2-5 also need to be merged through some common tree like yours or Andrew's as you suggest. So, if everyone is ok, I could do the following: 1. Post patches 1-5 for rc-2. 2. Post all other patches to respective maintainers after rc-2 3. Then after patches get ignored or merged, post remaining as a series for you or Andrew to pick up. -Deepa
On Tue, Aug 16, 2016 at 11:18:52AM -0700, Deepa Dinamani wrote: > Thank you for the suggestion. > > > Who are you execting to pull this huge patch series? > > The last pull request was addressed to Al as per Arnd's suggestion. > I'm not completely sure who should it be addressed to. > > > Why not just introduce the new api call, wait for that to be merged, and > > then push the individual patches through the different subsystems? > > After half of those get ignored, then provide a single set of patches > > that can go through Andrew or my trees. > > Arnd and I tried to do this a few ways. > > We can try to introduce the api first like you suggest. > > There are a few Acks already on the patches. > And, patches 2-5 also need to be merged through some common tree like > yours or Andrew's as you suggest. > > So, if everyone is ok, I could do the following: > > 1. Post patches 1-5 for rc-2. -rc2 is already released, and we aren't adding new apis this late in the release cycle, sorry. > 2. Post all other patches to respective maintainers after rc-2 > 3. Then after patches get ignored or merged, post remaining as a > series for you or Andrew to pick up. The apis need to be aimed for 4.9-rc1, it's too late for 4.8, sorry. greg k-h
On Monday, August 15, 2016 6:23:12 PM CEST Greg KH wrote: > On Sat, Aug 13, 2016 at 03:48:12PM -0700, Deepa Dinamani wrote: > > The series is aimed at getting rid of CURRENT_TIME and CURRENT_TIME_SEC macros. > > The macros are not y2038 safe. There is no plan to transition them into being > > y2038 safe. > > ktime_get_* api's can be used in their place. And, these are y2038 safe. > > Who are you execting to pull this huge patch series? Dave Chinner suggested to have Al Viro pick up the whole series. > Why not just introduce the new api call, wait for that to be merged, and > then push the individual patches through the different subsystems? > After half of those get ignored, then provide a single set of patches > that can go through Andrew or my trees. That was the original approach for v4.7, but (along with requesting a number of reworks that Deepa incorporated), Linus preferred doing the API change done in one chunk, see https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/9134249/ Arnd