[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAK8P3a0ZMm+OSdqVcjQ3XygY7Sy9uwn2FO_vv2UMA0cay+S+=g@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 12 Jul 2017 21:34:36 +0200
From: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>
To: Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>
Cc: Palmer Dabbelt <palmer@...belt.com>,
Olof Johansson <olof@...om.net>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>, albert@...ive.com,
Masahiro Yamada <yamada.masahiro@...ionext.com>,
Michal Marek <mmarek@...e.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@...il.com>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano@...aro.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Jason Cooper <jason@...edaemon.net>,
Marc Zyngier <marc.zyngier@....com>,
gregkh <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
Jiri Slaby <jslaby@...e.com>,
David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>,
Mauro Carvalho Chehab <mchehab@...nel.org>,
Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>,
Frédéric Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>,
Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
"Luis R. Rodriguez" <mcgrof@...nel.org>,
Doug Ledford <dledford@...hat.com>,
Bart Van Assche <bart.vanassche@...disk.com>,
sstabellini@...nel.org, Daniel Vetter <daniel.vetter@...ll.ch>,
Michael Ellerman <mpe@...erman.id.au>,
Mark Salter <msalter@...hat.com>,
Nicolas Dichtel <nicolas.dichtel@...nd.com>,
James Hogan <james.hogan@...tec.com>,
Paul Gortmaker <paul.gortmaker@...driver.com>,
Guenter Roeck <linux@...ck-us.net>,
Heiko Carstens <heiko.carstens@...ibm.com>,
Martin Schwidefsky <schwidefsky@...ibm.com>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
patches@...ups.riscv.org
Subject: Re: RISC-V Linux Port v6
On Wed, Jul 12, 2017 at 7:55 PM, Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com> wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 12, 2017 at 09:58:01AM +0200, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
>> On Wed, Jul 12, 2017 at 3:31 AM, Palmer Dabbelt <palmer@...belt.com> wrote:
>> Without having looked at the current state of the patch series, I would
>> guess that next week is a good time to ask for inclusion *in* linux-next,
>> while continuing the review.
>
> My only concern about getting this into -next is that is sets expectations
> that this is going to land in the next merge window, but we're unable to
> review much of the atomics, barriers and locking code because the
> architecture document is being rewritten and is not yet available:
>
> https://marc.info/?i=8709419e3d964b86b025bb35a6b55440%40HQMAIL105.nvidia.com
I don't see that as a show-stopper for the merge: yes, the kernel port
will need to conform to the architecture once we know what it is, but
overall, this seems like a detail that can easily be fixed after the merge
as no ABI is involved.
The worst case here is that the initial release is a bit unstable, slow
or both and this will get fixed later. I would expect this to be the
case even if the atomics are all correct ;-)
Arnd
Powered by blists - more mailing lists