From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jeremy Linton Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] efi: Introduce *_continue efi_memory_desc iterators Date: Thu, 2 Jun 2016 11:31:14 -0500 Message-ID: <57505F52.3040108@arm.com> References: <1464707672-21882-1-git-send-email-catalin.marinas@arm.com> <1464707672-21882-2-git-send-email-catalin.marinas@arm.com> <20160601103446.GC9280@leverpostej> <20160601104326.GA24749@e104818-lin.cambridge.arm.com> <20160602143650.GG2658@codeblueprint.co.uk> <20160602162925.GC24938@e104818-lin.cambridge.arm.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <20160602162925.GC24938-M2fw3Uu6cmfZROr8t4l/smS4ubULX0JqMm0uRHvK7Nw@public.gmane.org> Sender: linux-efi-owner-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org To: Catalin Marinas , Matt Fleming Cc: Mark Rutland , linux-efi-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org, Will Deacon , linux-arm-kernel-IAPFreCvJWM7uuMidbF8XUB+6BGkLq7r@public.gmane.org List-Id: linux-efi@vger.kernel.org On 06/02/2016 11:29 AM, Catalin Marinas wrote: > On Thu, Jun 02, 2016 at 03:36:50PM +0100, Matt Fleming wrote: >> On Wed, 01 Jun, at 11:43:26AM, Catalin Marinas wrote: >>> >>> Thanks for the heads up. I'll rebase the patches after -rc2 but anyway I >>> plan to merge them in 4.8 via the arm64 tree, including the patch above >>> if Matt acks it. So there is enough time to fix the conflicts. >> >> I'd really prefer it if you didn't take this series through the arm64 >> tree, unless there are existing dependencies, of course. >> >> There were a number of conflicts in 3 different maintainer trees in >> linux-next before the most recent merge window opened, and extra work >> was required to sort that out. I want to avoid that in the future, so >> expect me to be more insistent about keeping EFI patches in the EFI >> tree than I have been in the past. >> >> Do arm64 prerequisites exist for this series? Or are you planning on >> adding dependencies on top? > > I don't know when Jeremy plans to submit his contiguous PTE patches (we > rejected them on the grounds of unnecessary huge page splitting, hence > this series). If he's not targeting 4.8, I'm happy for the patches to go > in via the EFI tree. I can re-post them again for 4.8. They seem to get simpler every time! From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: jeremy.linton@arm.com (Jeremy Linton) Date: Thu, 2 Jun 2016 11:31:14 -0500 Subject: [PATCH 1/3] efi: Introduce *_continue efi_memory_desc iterators In-Reply-To: <20160602162925.GC24938@e104818-lin.cambridge.arm.com> References: <1464707672-21882-1-git-send-email-catalin.marinas@arm.com> <1464707672-21882-2-git-send-email-catalin.marinas@arm.com> <20160601103446.GC9280@leverpostej> <20160601104326.GA24749@e104818-lin.cambridge.arm.com> <20160602143650.GG2658@codeblueprint.co.uk> <20160602162925.GC24938@e104818-lin.cambridge.arm.com> Message-ID: <57505F52.3040108@arm.com> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org On 06/02/2016 11:29 AM, Catalin Marinas wrote: > On Thu, Jun 02, 2016 at 03:36:50PM +0100, Matt Fleming wrote: >> On Wed, 01 Jun, at 11:43:26AM, Catalin Marinas wrote: >>> >>> Thanks for the heads up. I'll rebase the patches after -rc2 but anyway I >>> plan to merge them in 4.8 via the arm64 tree, including the patch above >>> if Matt acks it. So there is enough time to fix the conflicts. >> >> I'd really prefer it if you didn't take this series through the arm64 >> tree, unless there are existing dependencies, of course. >> >> There were a number of conflicts in 3 different maintainer trees in >> linux-next before the most recent merge window opened, and extra work >> was required to sort that out. I want to avoid that in the future, so >> expect me to be more insistent about keeping EFI patches in the EFI >> tree than I have been in the past. >> >> Do arm64 prerequisites exist for this series? Or are you planning on >> adding dependencies on top? > > I don't know when Jeremy plans to submit his contiguous PTE patches (we > rejected them on the grounds of unnecessary huge page splitting, hence > this series). If he's not targeting 4.8, I'm happy for the patches to go > in via the EFI tree. I can re-post them again for 4.8. They seem to get simpler every time!