[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.21.9999.1908130951250.30024@viisi.sifive.com>
Date: Tue, 13 Aug 2019 09:51:56 -0700 (PDT)
From: Paul Walmsley <paul.walmsley@...ive.com>
To: Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>
cc: Palmer Dabbelt <palmer@...ive.com>,
Damien Le Moal <damien.lemoal@....com>,
linux-riscv@...ts.infradead.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Atish Patra <atish.patra@....com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 02/15] riscv: use CSR_SATP instead of the legacy sptbr
name in switch_mm
On Tue, 13 Aug 2019, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 13, 2019 at 09:36:23AM -0700, Paul Walmsley wrote:
> > On Tue, 13 Aug 2019, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> >
> > > Switch to our own constant for the satp register instead of using
> > > the old name from a legacy version of the privileged spec.
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>
> > > Reviewed-by: Atish Patra <atish.patra@....com>
> >
> > Didn't you want us to replace this with Bin Meng's patch?
> >
> > https://lore.kernel.org/linux-riscv/20190807151316.GB16432@infradead.org/
> >
> > If so, probably best just to drop this one and state a dependency.
>
> Either way is fine with me. But until you have a branch with
> either one applied I'm going to keep resending my patch, as random
> dependencies on uncommitted patches don't work.
If you're going to resend a patch, it's better to resend the other one
that you've explicitly endorsed in favor of your own.
- Paul
Powered by blists - more mailing lists