linux-kernel - Re: [GIT PULL] Fix RISC-V's arch-topology reporting

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: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

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

Message-ID: <20220907164140.GA30683@willie-the-truck>
Date:   Wed, 7 Sep 2022 17:41:41 +0100
From:   Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>
To:     Conor.Dooley@...rochip.com
Cc:     sudeep.holla@....com, palmer@...belt.com, catalin.marinas@....com,
        linux-riscv@...ts.infradead.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, atishp@...shpatra.org,
        Brice.Goglin@...ia.fr, gregkh@...uxfoundation.org
Subject: Re: [GIT PULL] Fix RISC-V's arch-topology reporting

On Wed, Sep 07, 2022 at 04:39:31PM +0000, Conor.Dooley@...rochip.com wrote:
> On 15/08/2022 23:14, Conor Dooley wrote:
> > Hey Will/Palmer/Sudeep,
> > 
> > Catalin suggested [0] dropping the CC: stable for the arm64 patch and
> > instead making it a specific prereq of the RISC-V patch & making a PR,
> > so here we are.. I was still up when -rc1 came out so pushed it last
> > night to get the test coverage, but LKP seems to not have reported a
> > build success since early on the 13th so not holding my horses! I built
> > it again for both ARMs and RISC-V myself.
> > 
> > I tagged it tonight, so it's on conor/linux.git as riscv-topo-on-6.0-rc1
> > with the prereq specified.
> > 
> > Not sure if you want to merge this too Sudeep or if that's up to Greg?
> 
> What's the story with this from an arm64 & topology PoV?
> Palmer merged this into riscv/for-next a couple weeks ago, so just
> wondering what the craic is on the other fronts.

If it's merged in the riscv tree, then I guess we don't need to do anything
on the arm64 side. It would be handy if it's on its own branch, however,
just in case we run into a conflict later on during the cycle.

Catalin -- this is the series we spoke about the other day touching the
topology code.

Cheers,

Will