linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v6 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]

Date:	Wed, 11 May 2016 14:08:09 -0700
From:	David Daney <ddaney@...iumnetworks.com>
To:	"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>,
	Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>
CC:	David Daney <ddaney.cavm@...il.com>,
	"linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org" 
	<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>,
	"the arch/x86 maintainers" <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>,
	Hanjun Guo <hanjun.guo@...aro.org>,
	Marc Zyngier <Marc.Zyngier@....com>,
	"linux-ia64@...r.kernel.org" <linux-ia64@...r.kernel.org>,
	"ACPI Devel Maling List" <linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org>,
	"devel@...ica.org" <devel@...ica.org>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Robert Richter <rrichter@...ium.com>,
	David Daney <david.daney@...ium.com>,
	Jon Masters <jcm@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 00/14] ACPI NUMA support for ARM64

On 05/11/2016 01:35 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Wed, May 11, 2016 at 12:40 PM, Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com> wrote:
>> On Wed, May 11, 2016 at 02:43:11AM +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
>>> On Wed, Apr 27, 2016 at 8:07 PM, David Daney <ddaney.cavm@...il.com> wrote:
>>>> From: David Daney <david.daney@...ium.com>
>>>>
>>>> Based on git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/arm64/linux.git
>>>> for-next/core branch at commit 643d703d2d2d ("arm64: compat: Check for
>>>> AArch32 state")
>>
>> [...]
>>
>>>> David Daney (2):
>>>>    arm64, numa: Cleanup NUMA disabled messages.
>>>>    acpi, numa, srat: Improve SRAT error detection and add messages.
>>>>
>>>> Hanjun Guo (11):
>>>>    acpi, numa: Use pr_fmt() instead of printk
>>>>    acpi, numa: Replace ACPI_DEBUG_PRINT() with pr_debug()
>>>>    acpi, numa: remove duplicate NULL check
>>>>    acpi, numa: move acpi_numa_slit_init() to drivers/acpi/numa.c
>>>>    arm64, numa: rework numa_add_memblk()
>>>>    x86, acpi, numa: cleanup acpi_numa_processor_affinity_init()
>>>>    acpi, numa: move bad_srat() and srat_disabled() to
>>>>      drivers/acpi/numa.c
>>>>    acpi, numa: remove unneeded acpi_numa=1
>>>>    acpi, numa: Move acpi_numa_memory_affinity_init() to
>>>>      drivers/acpi/numa.c
>>>>    arm64, acpi, numa: NUMA support based on SRAT and SLIT
>>>>    acpi, numa: Enable ACPI based NUMA on ARM64
>>>>
>>>> Robert Richter (1):
>>>>    acpi, numa: Move acpi_numa_arch_fixup() to ia64 only
>>>
>>> I need ACKs from the ARM64 maintainers on patches [6-7/13] and [13-14/14].
>>
>> There's also a dependency on the arm64 for-next/core branch, so I've been
>> largely ignoring this as far as 4.6 is concerned and was planning to take
>> a proper look for 4.7 once the upcoming merge window is out of the way.
>
> That would be 4.7 and 4.8 respectively I suppose?
>
> Anyway, Catalin has ACKed all of them except for the [13/14], so
> technically I can apply [1-12/14] now and then [13-14/14] can be
> applied when they are ready.
>
> Do you think there will be any problems with merging [6-7/14] into 4.7
> via the ACPI tree?
>

I would defer to the arm64 maintainers for decisions about the arm64 
specific parts of the patch set.  That said, many of the arm64 specific 
patches depend on the arm64 for-next/core branch, so you would have to 
be careful about merge ordering if you pull these in before the 
for-next/core branch is merged.

Also FWIW, I plan on addressing Catalin's comments about 13/14 and 
posting a new version of the patch set in the next day or two.

Thanks for looking at these,
David Daney