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  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:   Thu, 3 Nov 2016 05:37:52 +0000
From:   Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@....com>
To:     Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>
Cc:     linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, mark.rutland@....com,
        devicetree@...r.kernel.org, lorenzo.pieralisi@....com,
        vincent.guittot@...aro.org, linux-pm@...r.kernel.org,
        peterz@...radead.org, broonie@...nel.org, will.deacon@....com,
        dietmar.eggemann@....com, robh+dt@...nel.org, sudeep.holla@....com,
        linux@....linux.org.uk, morten.rasmussen@....com,
        linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v7 REPOST 0/9] CPUs capacity information for
 heterogeneous systems

Hi Catalin,

On 30/10/16 14:22, Catalin Marinas wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 17, 2016 at 04:46:41PM +0100, Juri Lelli wrote:
> > I'm thus now assuming that everybody is OK with the patches and that they can
> > be queued for 4.10 (we certainly need this plumbing at this point). Please
> > speak if my assumption is wrong (and provide feedback! :).
> > Otherwise I'm going to:
> > 
> >  - use Russell's patching system for patches 2 and 8
> >  - ask Sudeep to pull patches 3,5,6 and 7
> >  - ask Catalin/Will to pull patches 1,4 and 9
> 
> I'm happy to queue patches 1, 4 and 9 for 4.10 (though it might have
> been easier for the whole series to go through arm-soc).
> 
> > Do you think we might get into trouble splitting the merge process this way?
> 
> Probably not. The only minor downside is that I have to grab a new DT
> for Juno from Sudeep to test the patches. Not an issue, though.
> 

Thanks and apologies if merging through different trees generates some
confusion.

I updated arm patches to address Russell's comments. I did the same for
arm64. I'll reply with the updated version, so you can see if it looks
good to you as well. In case it is OK, I already updated the for-arm64
branch with the new version:
 
 git://linux-arm.org/linux-jl.git upstream/default_caps_for-arm64 

Best,

- Juri

Powered by blists - more mailing lists