Re: [GIT PULL] Please pull powerpc/linux.git powerpc-5.9-1 tag

[Al Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>]

On Fri, Aug 07, 2020 at 10:46:13AM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 7, 2020 at 6:14 AM Michael Ellerman <mpe@ellerman.id.au> wrote:
> >
> > Just one minor conflict, in a comment in drivers/misc/ocxl/config.c.
> 
> Well, this morning I merged the ptrace ->regset_get() updates from Al,
> and that brought in a different conflict.
> 
> I _think_ I resolved it correctly, but while the new model is fairly
> readable, the old one sure wasn't, and who knows how messed up my
> attempt to sort it out was. I don't know the pkey details on powerpc..
> 
> So I'd appreciate it if both Al and Aneesh Kumar would check that what
> I did to pkey_get() in arch/powerpc/kernel/ptrace/ptrace-view.c makes
> sense and works..

Grabbing...

Looks sane and yes, 3 membuf_store() instead of membuf_write() + membuf_store()
would make sense (might even yield better code).  Up to ppc folks...

> Side note - it might have been cleaner to just make it do
> 
>         membuf_store(&to, target->thread.amr);
>         membuf_store(&to, target->thread.iamr);
>         return membuf_store(&to, default_uamor);
> 
> instead of doing that membuf_write() for the first two ones and then
> the membuf_store() for the uamor field, but I did what I did to keep
> the logic as close to what it used to be as possible.
> 
> If I messed up, I apologize.
> 
> And if you agree that making it three membuf_store() instead of that
> odd "depend on the exact order of the thread struct and pick two
> consecutive values", I'll leave that to you as a separate cleanup.
> 
>                    Linus