[PATCH 0/5] x86: minor PAT adaptations

[PATCH 0/5] x86: minor PAT adaptations

[Andreas Herrmann]

Following some patches to slightly adapt the PAT code.

patch 1 - enable PAT for all AMD CPUs that have the PAT feature flag set
patch 2 - fix up paranoia check in pat_init and fix the logic to
          enable/disable PAT (IMHO the current code enables PAT on all
          Transmeta and Centaur CPUs even if no PAT feature flag is set) 
          (I admit I should have changed the sequence of patches 1 and 2.)
patch 3 - fix some checkpatch errors
patch 4 - variable renaming
patch 5 - slightly changing the code that is doing the intersection of
          pat_type and mtrr_type to be more readable (from my point of view)

Patches are against x86/pat (as of version v2.6.26-rc3-6-g46dd98a).

Please apply (at least patches 1 and 2).
Patches 3-5 are more a cleanup kind of thing.


Thanks.

Andreas

Re: [PATCH 0/5] x86: minor PAT adaptations

[Ingo Molnar]

* Andreas Herrmann <andreas.herrmann3@amd.com> wrote:

> Following some patches to slightly adapt the PAT code.
> 
> patch 1 - enable PAT for all AMD CPUs that have the PAT feature flag set
> patch 2 - fix up paranoia check in pat_init and fix the logic to
>           enable/disable PAT (IMHO the current code enables PAT on all
>           Transmeta and Centaur CPUs even if no PAT feature flag is set) 
>           (I admit I should have changed the sequence of patches 1 and 2.)
> patch 3 - fix some checkpatch errors
> patch 4 - variable renaming

applied to tip/x86/pat, thanks Andreas. (i presume you'll send a 
followup patch for the suggestions that came up in the discussion)

> patch 5 - slightly changing the code that is doing the intersection of
>           pat_type and mtrr_type to be more readable (from my point of view)
> 
> Patches are against x86/pat (as of version v2.6.26-rc3-6-g46dd98a).

#5 makes sense too, but it didnt apply cleanly:

 Applying patch 
 patches/pat-x86-pat-make-pat-x-mtrr-type-more-readable.patch
 patching file arch/x86/mm/pat.c
 Hunk #1 FAILED at 185.
 1 out of 1 hunk FAILED -- rejects in file arch/x86/mm/pat.c

(it didnt apply neither against tip/x86/pat or tip/master, nor against 
linus/master. I guess it's some mixup somewhere.)

	Ingo

Re: [PATCH 0/5] x86: minor PAT adaptations

[Andreas Herrmann]

On Thu, Jun 12, 2008 at 10:10:29AM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> 
> * Andreas Herrmann <andreas.herrmann3@amd.com> wrote:
> 
> > Following some patches to slightly adapt the PAT code.
> > 
> > patch 1 - enable PAT for all AMD CPUs that have the PAT feature flag set
> > patch 2 - fix up paranoia check in pat_init and fix the logic to
> >           enable/disable PAT (IMHO the current code enables PAT on all
> >           Transmeta and Centaur CPUs even if no PAT feature flag is set) 
> >           (I admit I should have changed the sequence of patches 1 and 2.)
> > patch 3 - fix some checkpatch errors
> > patch 4 - variable renaming
> 
> applied to tip/x86/pat, thanks Andreas. (i presume you'll send a 
> followup patch for the suggestions that came up in the discussion)

Yes, I'll do.

> > patch 5 - slightly changing the code that is doing the intersection of
> >           pat_type and mtrr_type to be more readable (from my point of view)
> > 
> > Patches are against x86/pat (as of version v2.6.26-rc3-6-g46dd98a).
> 
> #5 makes sense too, but it didnt apply cleanly:

That's odd. I've double checked it by doing a fresh

$ git remote add tip git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/tip/linux-2.6-tip.git
$ git remote update
$ git checkout tip/x86/pat

and applying patches 1-5 in sequence without problems.
(Patches were taken from emails that arrived via my linux-kernel
subscription.) Probably your tip/x86/pat is not at
v2.6.26-rc3-6-g46dd98a?

When trying to apply the patches to tip/master I get rejects for
patches 3 and 5.

Hence I think creating my patches against a feature branch was not a
good idea.

>  Applying patch 
>  patches/pat-x86-pat-make-pat-x-mtrr-type-more-readable.patch
>  patching file arch/x86/mm/pat.c
>  Hunk #1 FAILED at 185.
>  1 out of 1 hunk FAILED -- rejects in file arch/x86/mm/pat.c
> 
> (it didnt apply neither against tip/x86/pat or tip/master, nor against 
> linus/master. I guess it's some mixup somewhere.)

Ok, it's commit 282c454cd3a7041f59a37112bb2f82263bc38f6c which was not
contained in the tip/x86/pat branch. This means I have to adapt patch 5.

Finally a dumb question. What patches do you prefer?
Patches against feature branches (say tip/x86/foo), against tip/master
or against tip/auto-latest as described in your tip.git-Readme?


Thanks,

Andreas

Re: [PATCH 0/5] x86: minor PAT adaptations

[Ingo Molnar]

* Andreas Herrmann <andreas.herrmann3@amd.com> wrote:

> > > patch 5 - slightly changing the code that is doing the intersection of
> > >           pat_type and mtrr_type to be more readable (from my point of view)
> > > 
> > > Patches are against x86/pat (as of version 
> > > v2.6.26-rc3-6-g46dd98a).
> > 
> > #5 makes sense too, but it didnt apply cleanly:
> 
> That's odd. I've double checked it by doing a fresh
> 
> $ git remote add tip git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/tip/linux-2.6-tip.git
> $ git remote update
> $ git checkout tip/x86/pat
> 
> and applying patches 1-5 in sequence without problems.
> (Patches were taken from emails that arrived via my linux-kernel
> subscription.) Probably your tip/x86/pat is not at
> v2.6.26-rc3-6-g46dd98a?

it was there - but some other commit from upstream interfered.

> When trying to apply the patches to tip/master I get rejects for 
> patches 3 and 5.
> 
> Hence I think creating my patches against a feature branch was not a 
> good idea.

it was a good idea - as that the final destination where the PAT patches 
end up.

current tip/x86/pat head is:

 tip/x86/pat 499f8f8: x86: rename pat_wc_enabled to pat_enabled

> >  1 out of 1 hunk FAILED -- rejects in file arch/x86/mm/pat.c
> > 
> > (it didnt apply neither against tip/x86/pat or tip/master, nor against 
> > linus/master. I guess it's some mixup somewhere.)
> 
> Ok, it's commit 282c454cd3a7041f59a37112bb2f82263bc38f6c which was not 
> contained in the tip/x86/pat branch. This means I have to adapt patch 
> 5.

indeed. I cherry-picked this commit meanwhile into x86/pat.

> Finally a dumb question. What patches do you prefer? Patches against 
> feature branches (say tip/x86/foo), against tip/master or against 
> tip/auto-latest as described in your tip.git-Readme?

either is fine - but if you make specific topic updates it's best to do 
them against the topic branch and we'll integrate them all together. If 
in doubt, using tip/master doesnt hurt.

usually i do this: i update x86/pat, then i switch to 'master' and check 
whether it all merges cleanly via 'git-merge x86/pat'.

when you switch to a topic branch, you might also want to update to the 
latest linus tree via 'git-merge linus/master', to pick up all other 
fixes as well. The topic branches always merge cleanly to linus-latest. 
(we automate that - the x86/pat topic branch is not stale as its -rc3 
base would suggest, there simply was no need to merge it to Linus-latest 
up to now)

	Ingo