Date: Tue, 31 May 2022 13:15:01 +0200 From: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...nel.org> To: Huacai Chen <chenhuacai@...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 On Tue, May 31, 2022 at 10:17 AM Huacai Chen <chenhuacai@...nel.org> wrote: > 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). Ok, I see. Let's stay with the base on top of a mainline snapshot then. 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.