[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Tue, 31 May 2022 16:17:45 +0800
From: Huacai Chen <chenhuacai@...nel.org>
To: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...nel.org>
Cc: musl@...ts.openwall.com, WANG Xuerui <kernel@...0n.name>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>, linux-arch <linux-arch@...r.kernel.org>,
GNU C Library <libc-alpha@...rceware.org>, Yoshinori Sato <ysato@...rs.sourceforge.jp>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>, Marc Zyngier <maz@...nel.org>,
Masahiro Yamada <masahiroy@...nel.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, Jiaxun Yang <jiaxun.yang@...goat.com>,
ACPI Devel Maling List <linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org>, Jianmin Lv <lvjianmin@...ngson.cn>,
linux-pci <linux-pci@...r.kernel.org>, Ard Biesheuvel <ardb@...nel.org>,
Huacai Chen <chenhuacai@...ngson.cn>
Subject: Re: Re: [GIT PULL] asm-generic changes for 5.19
Hi, Arnd,
On Tue, May 31, 2022 at 4:09 PM Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...nel.org> wrote:
>
> On Tue, May 31, 2022 at 9:50 AM Huacai Chen <chenhuacai@...nel.org> wrote:
> > On Mon, May 30, 2022 at 11:56 PM Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...nel.org> wrote:
> > > On Mon, May 30, 2022 at 5:00 PM WANG Xuerui <kernel@...0n.name> wrote:
> > > > Now I see
> > > > the loongarch-next HEAD is already rebased on top of what I believe to
> > > > be the current main branch, however I vaguely remember that it's not
> > > > good to base one's patches on top of "some random commit", so I wonder
> > > > whether the current branch state is appropriate for a PR?
> > >
> > > You are correct, a pull request should always be based on an -rc, orat least
> > > have the minimum set of dependencies. The branch was previously
> > > based on top of the spinlock implementation, which is still the best
> > > place to start here.
> > I have a difficult problem to select the base. Take swiotlb_init() as
> > an example: If I select 5.18-rc1, I should use swiotlb_init(1); if I
> > select Linus' latest tree, I should use swiotlb_init(true,
> > SWIOTLB_VERBOSE). However, if I select 5.18-rc1, linux-next will have
> > a build error because the code there expect swiotlb_init(true,
> > SWIOTLB_VERBOSE).
>
> Ok, I see. This is the kind of thing we normally prevent by having everything
> in linux-next for a few weeks before the merge window. How many issues
> like this are you aware of? If it's just the swiotlb, you could try merging
> the swiotlb branch that is in mainline now on top of the spinlock branch,
> and still get a minimum set of dependencies. If there are many more,
> then basing on top of the current mainline is probably less intrusive after
> all.
I have 3 issues:
1, swiotlb_init(1) --> swiotlb_init(true, SWIOTLB_VERBOSE);
2, the prototype of handle_kernel_image() should be changed from 5
parameters to 6 parameters;
3, the return value type of huge_ptep_get_and_clear() should be
changed from void to pte_t (and the function implementation should be
also changed).
Huacai
>
> Arnd
Powered by blists - more mailing lists
Confused about mailing lists and their use?
Read about mailing lists on Wikipedia
and check out these
guidelines on proper formatting of your messages.
