linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v5 00/14] ACPI NUMA support for ARM64

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <571F9BDC.5090804@caviumnetworks.com>
Date:	Tue, 26 Apr 2016 09:48:28 -0700
From:	David Daney <ddaney@...iumnetworks.com>
To:	Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>
CC:	Hanjun Guo <hanjun.guo@...aro.org>,
	David Daney <ddaney@...iumnetworks.com>,
	<linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
	Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
	Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>,
	Tony Luck <tony.luck@...el.com>,
	Fenghua Yu <fenghua.yu@...el.com>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, <x86@...nel.org>,
	"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...ysocki.net>,
	Len Brown <lenb@...nel.org>, Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
	Frank Rowand <frowand.list@...il.com>,
	Grant Likely <grant.likely@...aro.org>,
	Robert Moore <robert.moore@...el.com>,
	Lv Zheng <lv.zheng@...el.com>,
	Marc Zyngier <Marc.Zyngier@....com>,
	<linux-ia64@...r.kernel.org>, <linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org>,
	<devel@...ica.org>, <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Robert Richter <rrichter@...ium.com>,
	David Daney <david.daney@...ium.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 00/14] ACPI NUMA support for ARM64

On 04/26/2016 06:35 AM, Will Deacon wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 26, 2016 at 09:03:25PM +0800, Hanjun Guo wrote:
>> On 2016/4/26 20:15, Will Deacon wrote:
>>> On Tue, Apr 26, 2016 at 01:31:07PM +0800, Hanjun Guo wrote:
>>>> On 2016/4/26 0:47, David Daney wrote:
[...]
>>>>>> Given that this ACPI series already requires some significant cross-arch
>>>>>> interaction (which is actually good!), perhaps extending the clean-up
>>>>>> patches to encompass some of the ACPI bits might make sense, and we can
>>>>>> get that queued as a pre-requisite.
>>>>>
>>>>> The cleanup patches you mention above are really independent of the ACPI
>>>>> things.  I have applied them both before and after the ACPI patches, and
>>>>> both seem to work.  With a quick perusal of the ACPI patches nothing
>>>>> jumps out at me as being a candidate for inclusion in the header file
>>>>> cleanup series.
>>>>
>>>> I agree. My patch set is ACPI related enablement, cleanups and
>>>> consolidations, it would be good to merge as a single patch set
>>>> as it's self-contained.
>>>
>>> Up to you. I just thought you might want to avoid having two sets of
>>> cross-arch changes and the associated merging headaches that go with
>>> that.
>>
>> Good point, as I suggested above, it can go with ACPI tree if it's ok
>> to you and Rafael. The problem we have now is that dt based core NUMA
>> support for ARM64 is queued in your tree, that would be the headache.
>
> Sorry, but if you wanted me *not* to queue the patches, then you should
> have said so (similarly, if you wanted a stable branch). I'm not rebasing
> our for-next/core branch now.

I am quite happy with the fact that you put the base device-tree based 
NUMA patches on for-next/core.

There is only a very small adjustment to those in the ACPI-NUMA patches 
([PATCH v5 06/14] arm64, numa: rework numa_add_memblk()), so I think we 
are fine as far as that goes.

My plan is to post a v6 later today that adjusts some of the messages 
printed out and adds some Reviewed-by and Acked-by that were accumulated.

David.