[PATCH 0/5] Consolidate init_task handling and expand macros

It doesn't seem useful to have the init_task in a header file rather than in a normal source file. We could consolidate init_task handling instead and expand out various macros. Here's a series of patches that consolidate init_task handling: (1) Alter the INIT_TASK_DATA linker script macro to

[PATCH 0/5] Consolidate init_task handling and expand macros

It doesn't seem useful to have the init_task in a header file rather than in a normal source file. We could consolidate init_task handling instead and expand out various macros. Here's a series of patches that consolidate init_task handling: (1) Alter the INIT_TASK_DATA linker script macro to

Re: [PATCH 0/5] Consolidate init_task handling

On Sun, Nov 26, 2017 at 3:44 PM, David Howells wrote: > Linus Torvalds wrote: > >> So I don't see anything wrong with it, but I think it's 4.16 material. > > Okay. Side note: I had already pulled it into my tree, but then got cold feet. And

Re: [PATCH 0/5] Consolidate init_task handling

On Sun, Nov 26, 2017 at 3:44 PM, David Howells wrote: > Linus Torvalds wrote: > >> So I don't see anything wrong with it, but I think it's 4.16 material. > > Okay. Side note: I had already pulled it into my tree, but then got cold feet. And it would be lovely to get a few acks from

Re: [PATCH 0/5] Consolidate init_task handling

Linus Torvalds wrote: > So I don't see anything wrong with it, but I think it's 4.16 material. Okay. Thanks, David

Re: [PATCH 0/5] Consolidate init_task handling

Linus Torvalds wrote: > So I don't see anything wrong with it, but I think it's 4.16 material. Okay. Thanks, David

Re: [PATCH 0/5] Consolidate init_task handling

On Sat, Nov 25, 2017 at 2:47 PM, David Howells wrote: > I've updated my git branch with changed descriptions, but the content is the > same. Ok, so I think this is definitely the right thing to do, but decided that it's also something that should cook in linux-next for a

Re: [PATCH 0/5] Consolidate init_task handling

On Sat, Nov 25, 2017 at 2:47 PM, David Howells wrote: > I've updated my git branch with changed descriptions, but the content is the > same. Ok, so I think this is definitely the right thing to do, but decided that it's also something that should cook in linux-next for a while just to make sure

Re: [PATCH 0/5] Consolidate init_task handling

I've updated my git branch with changed descriptions, but the content is the same. David

Re: [PATCH 0/5] Consolidate init_task handling

I've updated my git branch with changed descriptions, but the content is the same. David

Re: [PATCH 0/5] Consolidate init_task handling

Linus Torvalds wrote: > Or at least it's a very unusual use of that word. Why doesn't the > explanation just say what it does: "move", and say from where to where > ("from macro to definition" or something)? > > Or "remove macro XYZ, expanding it in place", or

Re: [PATCH 0/5] Consolidate init_task handling

Linus Torvalds wrote: > Or at least it's a very unusual use of that word. Why doesn't the > explanation just say what it does: "move", and say from where to where > ("from macro to definition" or something)? > > Or "remove macro XYZ, expanding it in place", or something? To me, > "unroll" has a

Re: [PATCH 0/5] Consolidate init_task handling

On Fri, Nov 24, 2017 at 5:31 AM, David Howells wrote: > > It doesn't seem useful to have the init_task in a header file rather than > in a normal source file. We could consolidate init_task handling instead. > Do want to do this? If so, this is probably something we'd want

Re: [PATCH 0/5] Consolidate init_task handling

On Fri, Nov 24, 2017 at 5:31 AM, David Howells wrote: > > It doesn't seem useful to have the init_task in a header file rather than > in a normal source file. We could consolidate init_task handling instead. > Do want to do this? If so, this is probably something we'd want to do at > the end of

[PATCH 0/5] Consolidate init_task handling

Hi Linus, It doesn't seem useful to have the init_task in a header file rather than in a normal source file. We could consolidate init_task handling instead. Do want to do this? If so, this is probably something we'd want to do at the end of the merge window, though not necessarily this one.

[PATCH 0/5] Consolidate init_task handling

Hi Linus, It doesn't seem useful to have the init_task in a header file rather than in a normal source file. We could consolidate init_task handling instead. Do want to do this? If so, this is probably something we'd want to do at the end of the merge window, though not necessarily this one.

[PATCH 0/5] Consolidate init_task handling

Hi Ingo, Is this something that could be taken into the tip tree? It's a series of patches that consolidate init_task handling: (1) Alter the INIT_TASK_DATA linker script macro to set init_thread_union and init_stack rather than defining these in C. Insert init_task and

[PATCH 0/5] Consolidate init_task handling

Hi Ingo, Is this something that could be taken into the tip tree? It's a series of patches that consolidate init_task handling: (1) Alter the INIT_TASK_DATA linker script macro to set init_thread_union and init_stack rather than defining these in C. Insert init_task and

[RFC PATCH 0/5] Consolidate init_task handling

Here are some patches that consolidate init_task handling: (1) Alter the INIT_TASK_DATA linker script macro to set init_thread_union and init_stack rather than defining these in C. Insert init_task and init_thread_into into the init_stack area in the linker script as appropriate

[RFC PATCH 0/5] Consolidate init_task handling

Here are some patches that consolidate init_task handling: (1) Alter the INIT_TASK_DATA linker script macro to set init_thread_union and init_stack rather than defining these in C. Insert init_task and init_thread_into into the init_stack area in the linker script as appropriate