[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <YdbAgybzS2Uw9/qC@FVFF77S0Q05N>
Date: Thu, 6 Jan 2022 10:23:06 +0000
From: Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>
To: Palmer Dabbelt <palmer@...belt.com>
Cc: jszhang3@...l.ustc.edu.cn, tglx@...utronix.de,
Paul Walmsley <paul.walmsley@...ive.com>,
aou@...s.berkeley.edu, bjorn@...nel.org, ast@...nel.org,
daniel@...earbox.net, andrii@...nel.org, john.fastabend@...il.com,
kpsingh@...nel.org, masahiroy@...nel.org, michal.lkml@...kovi.net,
ndesaulniers@...gle.com, wangkefeng.wang@...wei.com,
tongtiangen@...wei.com, linux-riscv@...ts.infradead.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
bpf@...r.kernel.org, linux-kbuild@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 09/12] riscv: extable: add `type` and `data` fields
On Wed, Jan 05, 2022 at 07:21:26PM -0800, Palmer Dabbelt wrote:
> On Thu, 18 Nov 2021 07:21:55 PST (-0800), mark.rutland@....com wrote:
> > On Thu, Nov 18, 2021 at 07:42:49PM +0800, Jisheng Zhang wrote:
> > > On Thu, 18 Nov 2021 19:26:05 +0800 Jisheng Zhang wrote:
> > > Hi Mark, Thomas,
> > >
> > > x86 and arm64 version of sort_relative_table routine are the same, I want to
> > > unify them, and then use the common function for riscv, but I'm not sure
> > > which name is better. Could you please suggest?
> >
> > I sent a patch last week which unifies them as
> > sort_relative_table_with_data():
> >
> > https://lore.kernel.org/linux-arm-kernel/20211108114220.32796-1-mark.rutland@arm.com/
> >
> > Thomas, are you happy with that patch?
> >
> > With your ack it could go via the riscv tree for v5.17 as a preparatory
> > cleanup in this series.
> >
> > Maybe we could get it in as a cleanup for v5.16-rc{2,3} ?
>
> I don't see anything on that thread, and looks like last time I had to touch
> sorttable I just took it via the RISC-V tree. I went ahead and put Mark's
> patch, along with this patch set, on my for-next.
FWIW, that sounds good to me. Thanks for picking that up!
> I had to fix up a few minor issues, so LMK if anything went off the rails.
I assume that was just for this patch set, as I couldn't spot any change to my
patch in the riscv for-next branch.
Thanks,
Mark.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists