[PATCH 0/3] COVER: Remove memcpy_page_flushcache()

[Michael Ellerman]

Ira Weiny <ira.weiny at intel.com> writes:
> + Konstantin
>
> Michael Ellerman wrote:
>> Ira Weiny <ira.weiny at intel.com> writes:
>> > Dave Hansen wrote:
>> >> On 3/15/23 16:20, Ira Weiny wrote:
>> >> > 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.
>> >
>> >> 
>> >> 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.
>
>> 
>> > 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!
>
>> 
>> 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