On Thu, 2025-10-02 at 14:55 -0700, Dave Hansen wrote: > That's not a bad idea. Or, even if you can pick two amenable > architectures to start with it will make it really obvious that this is > useful. Two architectures means a *lot*, IMNHO. Two is a billion times > better than one.
I think it's a bad idea, if I understand it correctly. The patchset conceptually patches a mechanism of the kernel as a whole, but one which just so happens to need to be implemented separately for each arch. Breaking it down like you suggest creates an embarrassingly high likelihood of different architectures' implementations of it going out of sync, a previous situation that this patchset was partly intended to address. I say keep it atomic. If it breaks on an arch or two but not others and nobody notices right away, that would be better addressed with a new patch when someone eventually does notice. Just my 2¢…
