Re: [PATCH 0/2] x86: Use "er" asm constriant for add/sub

[Jonathan Cameron]

On Tue, 8 Sep 2026 09:55:01 -0700
Borislav Petkov <bp@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> On Tue, Sep 08, 2026 at 05:49:17PM +0200, Uwe Kleine-König wrote:
> > I don't see what you mean. If both the tip tree and the iio tree
> > contain the same commit (with or without a tag on it), it doesn't matter
> > who created that and when and in which repo it appeared first. The first
> > to send it to Linus makes it new for him and all later PRs using it only
> > introduce the follow-up commits. So if you pull Jonathan's branch you
> > still can send the branch/tag that contains it whenever you like
> > independant of when Jonathan sends out his PR.  
> 
> Yes, I'm going to have to merge that branch into tip now so I'd need the
> assurance from Jonathan that this branch is not going to change.

That's what an immutable branch means to everyone I've ever shared them
with in the past, but sure - it wouldn't change.  Anyhow, easier solution
below.

> 
> Also, those patches are not tip-conform, but whatever, not that important for
> a one-time thing.
> 
> What I really don't understand is, why this rush needs to happen now so that
> we completely do a one-off on the agreed upon process and we have to do all
> this unnecessary gymnastics?
> 
> We have plenty of time.
> 
> So why do we even have to debate this instead of you folks dropping this and
> we merge it through tip and then everything's going the usual way?
> 
> When people start merging x86 patches in their trees, when do you think the
> process will break down and we'll have to redo branches and go into a crazy
> dependency madness?
> 
> We're not merging other stuff through tip without an Ack - why can't you
> adhere to the process we've all agreed upon?
> 
> Yes, this can work now. Is it necessary? Absolutely not because it is
> a one-off and will get everyone involved, confused.
> 
> So please do not do this in the future. If we don't react to the mail, you can
> always ping us on IRC like other folks do.
> 
> Thx.

I've dropped the branch from IIO. That's fine because it was still being
tested and hasn't gone out as non-rebasing yet.

Next time I'll maybe find an IRC gateway and ping you on that.  I can't
find any reference to that being your preference in the kernel docs.
Given you have a helpful page on tip, might be worth adding a note.
I might of course be missing it.

If it goes into a reasonably early rc, I'll just merge the relevant rc
rather than needing an immutable. If next cycle, immutable please.

I started out a bit grumpy that I had to hold a non trivial series for
a cycle because of an x86 bug (having been very happy when David
fixed it incredibly quickly!), that got reviewed then disappeared
down a hole and didn't look like it would ever be seen again.
Meh, got me on a belligerent day.

Jonathan