lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2022]   [May]   [31]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    From
    Date
    SubjectRe: [musl] Re: [GIT PULL] asm-generic changes for 5.19
    Hi, Arnd,

    On Tue, May 31, 2022 at 4:09 PM Arnd Bergmann <arnd@kernel.org> wrote:
    >
    > On Tue, May 31, 2022 at 9:50 AM Huacai Chen <chenhuacai@kernel.org> wrote:
    > > On Mon, May 30, 2022 at 11:56 PM Arnd Bergmann <arnd@kernel.org> wrote:
    > > > On Mon, May 30, 2022 at 5:00 PM WANG Xuerui <kernel@xen0n.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

    \
     
     \ /
      Last update: 2022-05-31 10:18    [W:2.514 / U:25.640 seconds]
    ©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site