Will Deacon <will.dea...@arm.com> writes: > On Fri, Nov 04, 2016 at 03:58:22PM +1100, Michael Ellerman wrote: >> Christopher Covington <c...@codeaurora.org> writes: >> > arch/powerpc/include/asm/book3s/32/mmu-hash.h | 2 +- >> > arch/powerpc/include/asm/book3s/64/mmu.h | 2 +- >> > arch/powerpc/include/asm/mm-arch-hooks.h | 6 +++--- >> > arch/powerpc/include/asm/mmu-40x.h | 2 +- >> > arch/powerpc/include/asm/mmu-44x.h | 2 +- >> > arch/powerpc/include/asm/mmu-8xx.h | 2 +- >> > arch/powerpc/include/asm/mmu-book3e.h | 2 +- >> > arch/powerpc/include/asm/mmu_context.h | 4 ++-- >> > arch/powerpc/include/asm/vdso.h | 2 +- >> > arch/powerpc/include/uapi/asm/elf.h | 2 +- >> > arch/powerpc/kernel/signal_32.c | 8 ++++---- >> > arch/powerpc/kernel/signal_64.c | 4 ++-- >> > arch/powerpc/kernel/vdso.c | 8 ++++---- >> > arch/powerpc/perf/callchain.c | 12 ++++++------ >> > 14 files changed, 29 insertions(+), 29 deletions(-) >> >> This is kind of annoying, but I guess it's worth doing. >> >> It's going to conflict like hell though. Who were you thinking would >> merge this series? I think it should go via Andrew Morton's tree, as >> that way if we get bad conflicts we can pull it out and redo it. > > The other thing you can do is generate the patch towards the end of the > merge window and send it as a separate pull request. The disadvantage of > that is that it can't spend any time in -next, but that might be ok for a > mechanical rename.
True. Though in this case it's a mechanical rename that then allows us to use the generic code, so I'd prefer we had some -next coverage on the latter. The other other option would be to wrap all uses of the arch value in a macro (or actually two probably, one a getter one a setter). That would then allow arches to use the generic code regardless of the name and type of their mm->context.vdso_whatever. That would allow the basic series to go in, and then each arch could do a series later that switches it to the "standard" name and type. cheers