linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] arm64: dts: allwinner: Add cache information to the SoC dtsi for H6

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]

Date: Tue, 28 May 2024 18:02:52 +0200
From: Dragan Simic <dsimic@...jaro.org>
To: wens@...e.org
Cc: jernej.skrabec@...il.com, samuel@...lland.org,
 linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, devicetree@...r.kernel.org,
 robh@...nel.org, krzk+dt@...nel.org, conor+dt@...nel.org,
 linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-sunxi@...ts.linux.dev
Subject: Re: [PATCH] arm64: dts: allwinner: Add cache information to the SoC
 dtsi for H6

Hello Chen-Yu,

On 2024-05-28 17:56, Chen-Yu Tsai wrote:
> On Tue, May 28, 2024 at 11:46 PM Chen-Yu Tsai <wens@...e.org> wrote:
>> 
>> On Sun, 28 Apr 2024 13:40:36 +0200, Dragan Simic wrote:
>> > Add missing cache information to the Allwinner H6 SoC dtsi, to allow
>> > the userspace, which includes lscpu(1) that uses the virtual files provided
>> > by the kernel under the /sys/devices/system/cpu directory, to display the
>> > proper H6 cache information.
>> >
>> > Adding the cache information to the H6 SoC dtsi also makes the following
>> > warning message in the kernel log go away:
>> >
>> > [...]
>> 
>> Applied to sunxi/dt-for-6.11 in sunxi/linux.git, thanks!
>> 
>> [1/1] arm64: dts: allwinner: Add cache information to the SoC dtsi for 
>> H6
>>       https://git.kernel.org/sunxi/linux/c/c8240e4b0fd2
> 
> OK, that's weird. Somehow b4 thought this patch was v2 of the A64 patch 
> [1].
> Looks like they are threaded together because this patch has 
> "In-Reply-To".
> 
> Please avoid it in the future.

I'm sorry for that.  I noticed that back when I sent the patches to the
mailing list, but didn't want to make some noise about that.  The root
cause was some missing configuration for "git send-email", which 
resulted
in adding troublesome threading-related headers to the messages for the
individual .patch files that in fact were correctly created by running
"git format-patch".

Do I need to resend the patches?