[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <8735qlwx2y.wl-maz@kernel.org>
Date: Fri, 03 Sep 2021 15:30:29 +0100
From: Marc Zyngier <maz@...nel.org>
To: Michael Ellerman <mpe@...erman.id.au>
Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>, aik@...abs.ru,
aneesh.kumar@...ux.ibm.com, anton@...abs.org,
bigeasy@...utronix.de, christophe.leroy@...roup.eu, clg@...d.org,
ego@...ux.vnet.ibm.com, farosas@...ux.ibm.com,
fthain@...ux-m68k.org, hbathini@...ux.ibm.com, jniethe5@...il.com,
joel@....id.au, kjain@...ux.ibm.com, ldufour@...ux.ibm.com,
leobras.c@...il.com, linkmauve@...kmauve.fr,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org,
lkp@...el.com, lukas.bulwahn@...il.com, masahiroy@...nel.org,
maskray@...gle.com, msuchanek@...e.de, nathan@...nel.org,
npiggin@...il.com, oss@...error.net, parth@...ux.ibm.com,
paul.gortmaker@...driver.com, psampat@...ux.ibm.com,
rdunlap@...radead.org, srikar@...ux.vnet.ibm.com,
sxwjean@...il.com, wanjiabing@...o.com, zhengyongjun3@...wei.com,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Subject: Re: [GIT PULL] Please pull powerpc/linux.git powerpc-5.15-1 tag
Hi Michael,
On Fri, 03 Sep 2021 14:36:57 +0100,
Michael Ellerman <mpe@...erman.id.au> wrote:
>
> Hi Linus,
>
> Please pull powerpc updates for 5.15.
>
> A bit of a small batch this time.
>
> There was one conflict against my own fixes branch, and the resolution was a little bit
> messy, so I just did a merge of fixes myself to resolve the conflict. I didn't think there
> was any value in having you resolve a conflict between two of my own branches.
>
> Notable out of area changes:
> scripts/mod/modpost.c # 1e688dd2a3d6 powerpc/bug: Provide better flexibility to WARN_ON/__WARN_FLAGS() with asm goto
> kernel/irq/irqdomain.c # 51be9e51a800 KVM: PPC: Book3S HV: XIVE: Fix mapping of passthrough interrupts
>
> That second one generated a bit of discussion[1] with tglx and maz,
> who asked if we could avoid adding the export of
> irq_get_default_host(). Cédric replied explaining that we don't
> really have good way to avoid it, but we never heard back from them,
> so in the end I decided to merge it.
Apologies for this, I clearly have lost track of it.
It clearly isn't pretty, but it isn't a deal breaker either. In the
end, it will be easier to address with the code being in the tree.
Thanks,
M.
--
Without deviation from the norm, progress is not possible.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists