Re: [PATCHv2 00/11]Get rid of all the old macro DMA_nBIT_MASK anduse DMA_BIT_MASK(n) instead

[Ingo Molnar]

* Stefan Richter <stefanr@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> Yang Hongyang wrote:
> > v1->v2:fix s/micro/macro typo and keep the old defines
> >             of DMA_nBIT_MASK
> > ----------------------
> > Replace all DMA_nBIT_MASK macro with the new DMA_BIT_MASK(n) macro
> > 
> > 01:Replace all DMA_64BIT_MASK macro with DMA_BIT_MASK(64)
> > 02:Replace all DMA_48BIT_MASK macro with DMA_BIT_MASK(48)
> > 03:Replace all DMA_40BIT_MASK macro with DMA_BIT_MASK(40)
> > 04:Replace all DMA_39BIT_MASK macro with DMA_BIT_MASK(39)
> > 05:Replace all DMA_35BIT_MASK macro with DMA_BIT_MASK(35)
> > 06:Replace all DMA_32BIT_MASK macro with DMA_BIT_MASK(32)
> > 07:Replace all DMA_31BIT_MASK macro with DMA_BIT_MASK(31)
> > 08:Replace all DMA_30BIT_MASK macro with DMA_BIT_MASK(30)
> > 09:Replace all DMA_28BIT_MASK macro with DMA_BIT_MASK(28)
> > 10:Replace all DMA_24BIT_MASK macro with DMA_BIT_MASK(24)
> > 11:Update the old macro DMA_nBIT_MASK related documentations
> > 
> 
> Shouldn't you organize the patch series per subsystem, not per old
> macro?  And then Cc the respective maintainers?
> 
> As it stands, the patches cannot be routed through the normal channels;
> yet there is no fundamental reason to handle these patches differently
> from normal patches.

Traditionally such trivially correct convert-it-all patches 
lived in -mm and were merged upstream in one go, near the end of 
the merge window.

Sprinkling it into dozens of subsystem channels (some of which 
are very unreliable) is neither good nor an economic use of our 
resources.

Patches that can potentially cause trouble should go via the 
usual channels.

	Ingo
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/