Re: [PATCH AUTOSEL 5.14 03/25] cxl: Move cxl_core to new directory

[Dan Williams]

On Tue, Sep 14, 2021 at 8:06 AM Ben Widawsky <ben.widawsky@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On 21-09-14 09:57:49, Jonathan Cameron wrote:
> > On Tue, 14 Sep 2021 09:56:23 +0100
> > Jonathan Cameron <Jonathan.Cameron@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > > On Mon, 13 Sep 2021 18:33:17 -0400
> > > Sasha Levin <sashal@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > >
> > > > From: Ben Widawsky <ben.widawsky@xxxxxxxxx>
> > > >
> > > > [ Upstream commit 5161a55c069f53d88da49274cbef6e3c74eadea9 ]
> > > >
> > > > CXL core is growing, and it's already arguably unmanageable. To support
> > > > future growth, move core functionality to a new directory and rename the
> > > > file to represent just bus support. Future work will remove non-bus
> > > > functionality.
> > > >
> > > > Note that mem.h is renamed to cxlmem.h to avoid a namespace collision
> > > > with the global ARCH=um mem.h header.
> > >
> > > Not a fix...
> > >
> > > I'm guessing this got picked up on the basis of the Reported-by: tag?
> > > I think that was added for a minor tweak as this went through review rather
> > > than referring to the whole patch.
> > Or possibly because it was a precursor to the fix in the next patch.
> >
> > Hmm.  Ben, Dan, does it make sense for these two to go into stable?
> >
> > Jonathan
>
> As of now, no, but having this will make future fixes much easier to cherry
> pick.

Sasha, please drop this. The CXL subsystem is still in major feature
development. I would rather manually backport small fixes rather than
backport major code movement just to make small fix backport easier.

Let me know if there was a specific fix autosel was trying to resolve
and we'll take a look at whether it makes sense to do a custom
backport for -stable.