From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.3 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS, USER_AGENT_SANE_1 autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 758F0C2D0E2 for ; Tue, 22 Sep 2020 04:37:58 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3F03323A34 for ; Tue, 22 Sep 2020 04:37:58 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1726488AbgIVEh5 (ORCPT ); Tue, 22 Sep 2020 00:37:57 -0400 Received: from verein.lst.de ([213.95.11.211]:43032 "EHLO verein.lst.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1726492AbgIVEhz (ORCPT ); Tue, 22 Sep 2020 00:37:55 -0400 Received: by verein.lst.de (Postfix, from userid 2407) id 4D5D86736F; Tue, 22 Sep 2020 06:37:52 +0200 (CEST) Date: Tue, 22 Sep 2020 06:37:52 +0200 From: Christoph Hellwig To: Palmer Dabbelt , viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk, Arnd Bergmann Cc: Christoph Hellwig , Paul Walmsley , linux-riscv@lists.infradead.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-arch@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: remove set_fs for riscv v2 Message-ID: <20200922043752.GA29151@lst.de> References: <20200907055825.1917151-1-hch@lst.de> <20200909065515.GA9618@lst.de> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20200909065515.GA9618@lst.de> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.17 (2007-11-01) Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-arch@vger.kernel.org Given tht we've not made much progress with the common branch, are you fine just picking this up through the riscv tree for 5.10? I'll defer other architectures that depend on the common changes to 5.11 then. On Wed, Sep 09, 2020 at 08:55:15AM +0200, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > now that we've sorted out a remaining issue base.set_fs should not > be rebased any more, so you could pull it into the riscv tree or a topic > branch. > > The first four patch should go into base.set_fs, though. Arnd, can you > re-review the updated patches? ---end quoted text---