linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v4 00/14] fix some type infos and bugs for arm64/of numa

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

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

Date:	Tue, 14 Jun 2016 15:22:20 +0100
From:	Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>
To:	"Leizhen (ThunderTown)" <thunder.leizhen@...wei.com>
Cc:	Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>,
	devicetree <devicetree@...r.kernel.org>,
	Zefan Li <lizefan@...wei.com>,
	David Daney <david.daney@...ium.com>,
	Xinwei Hu <huxinwei@...wei.com>,
	Hanjun Guo <guohanjun@...wei.com>,
	linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Robert Richter <rrichter@...ium.com>,
	Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
	Tianhong Ding <dingtianhong@...wei.com>,
	Grant Likely <grant.likely@...aro.org>,
	Ganapatrao Kulkarni <gkulkarni@...iumnetworks.com>,
	Frank Rowand <frowand.list@...il.com>,
	linux-arm-kernel <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 00/14] fix some type infos and bugs for arm64/of numa

On Wed, Jun 08, 2016 at 04:59:03PM +0800, Leizhen (ThunderTown) wrote:
> On 2016/6/7 21:58, Will Deacon wrote:
> > On Tue, Jun 07, 2016 at 04:08:04PM +0800, Zhen Lei wrote:
> >> v3 -> v4:
> >> 1. Packed three patches of Kefeng Wang, patch6-8.
> >> 2. Add 6 new patches(9-15) to enhance the numa on arm64.
> >>
> >> v2 -> v3:
> >> 1. Adjust patch2 and patch5 according to Matthias Brugger's advice, to make the
> >>    patches looks more well. The final code have no change. 
> >>
> >> v1 -> v2:
> >> 1. Base on https://lkml.org/lkml/2016/5/24/679
> > 
> > If you want bug fixes to land in 4.7, you'll need to base them on a
> > mainline kernel.
> 
> I heared that David Daney's acpi numa patch series was accepted and
> put into next branch(Linux 4.8).
> Otherwise I will suggest him sending his patch6-7 to mainline first.
> So that, only a very small conflict will be exist.
> 
> I also tested that:
> 1. git am David Daney's patch6-7, then git am all of my patches on a
> branch, named branch A.
> 2. git am David Daney's patch6-7 on another branch, named branch B.
> 3. when I git merge B into branch A, it's still conflict. So I guess
> git merge is based on source code, rather than patches.
> 
> So at present, unless the maintainers are willing to resolve the
> conflict, otherwise I update my patches will not work.

It usually depends on how complex the conflict is and whether your
patches functionally depend on the other patches. I have no idea what
the dependency is here since I haven't tried applying them to mainline.

> Fortunately, these patches are not particularly urgent. So I think I
> can wait until Linux 4.8 start, then send these patches again. But I'm
> not sure whether these patches can be merged into Linux 4.8, I really
> hope.

If there are fixes to the arm64 ACPI NUMA patches that Rafael queued
into linux-next, they should be sent to him and potentially being queued
on top ahead of the 4.8 merging window or shortly after 4.8-rc1.
Non-ACPI NUMA patches (as I can see, most of these patches are DT
specific) could be merged independently.

So how many patches do you have in each category below:

1. NUMA fixes against current mainline (4.7-rc3)
2. NUMA fixes against the arm64 ACPI NUMA patches queued by Rafael
3. New functionality or clean-up. Are these against mainline or ACPI
   NUMA patches?

-- 
Catalin