Re: [PATCH 00/32] x86/msr: Drop 32-bit MSR interfaces
Ingo Molnar <[email protected]> Fri, 17 Jul 2026 11:38:45 +0200
| Newsgroups | org.kernel.vger.linux-ide,dev.linux.lists.linux-coco,dev.linux.lists.virtualization,org.freedesktop.lists.dri-devel,org.infradead.lists.linux-mtd,org.kernel.vger.kvm,org.kernel.vger.linux-acpi,org.kernel.vger.linux-crypto,org.kernel.vger.linux-edac,org.kernel.vger.linux-fbdev,org.kernel.vger.linux-gpio,org.kernel.vger.linux-hwmon,org.kernel.vger.linux-hyperv,org.kernel.vger.linux-kernel,org.kernel.vger.linux-pci,org.kernel.vger.linux-perf-users,org.kernel.vger.linux-pm,org.kernel.vger.platform-driver-x86,org.xenproject.lists.xen-devel |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
* Juergen Gross <[email protected]> wrote: > On 02.07.26 12:07, Ingo Molnar wrote: > > > > * Sean Christopherson <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > Note that the individual patches are IMO significantly easier to review > > > > through the actual 32-bit => 64-bit variable assignment changes done > > > > in isolation (which sometimes include minor cleanups), while > > > > the Coccinelle semantic patch: > > > > > > > > { a(b,c) => c = a(b) } > > > > > > > > which changes both the function signature and the order of terms as > > > > well, is just a single add-on treewide patch. > > > > > > Is the plan for subsystem maintainers to pick up the relevant patches, > > > and then do the treewide change one release cycle later? > > > > I'll try to keep the patches in a single tree (tip:x86/msr) > > in the hope of not prolonging the pain two cycles - but it's > > of course fine for maintainers to pick up the patches too > > (most of them are standalone), we'll sort it all out in the end. > > Ingo, would you be fine with me posting patch updates just as replies to the > original patch emails? This would speed things up, as I wouldn't need to wait > for more review input of all the patches before sending out new versions. Sure, that works for me too. I've picked up a couple of -v2 patches already. Thanks, Ingo