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 Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id F086FC433FE for ; Tue, 31 May 2022 11:15:24 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S244909AbiEaLPX (ORCPT ); Tue, 31 May 2022 07:15:23 -0400 Received: from lindbergh.monkeyblade.net ([23.128.96.19]:34768 "EHLO lindbergh.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S233540AbiEaLPW (ORCPT ); Tue, 31 May 2022 07:15:22 -0400 Received: from ams.source.kernel.org (ams.source.kernel.org [IPv6:2604:1380:4601:e00::1]) by lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 441E2994F3; Tue, 31 May 2022 04:15:21 -0700 (PDT) Received: from smtp.kernel.org (relay.kernel.org [52.25.139.140]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ams.source.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 02846B80FBD; Tue, 31 May 2022 11:15:20 +0000 (UTC) Received: by smtp.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id BC2E3C385A9; Tue, 31 May 2022 11:15:18 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=kernel.org; s=k20201202; t=1653995718; bh=spm2UFjiS6fo8kk8UmCdleJqxwofF/24678eBahMomc=; h=References:In-Reply-To:From:Date:Subject:To:Cc:From; b=DUTZyAV6vmjsTeXar9jAU8J1pcHQfkQuE5QyO53BZ8O6qshPBXt3F4Ue1GJ6SXGNe xVzcOgcyEA1gJWG0/rXEsHtnu61j9OOX7kyU2z/Kf1WnM+x8t+sjTKN+EDVFCALLgW 5qT/LD2vYLqTTcqYS1OMH7FWK5Fb7cQW4GySvfQ9U3XQrBX31zCpcycj4Wm/VcwOyG ZeE32bTP6rkd8lLPtfmxzOKN26hh89r5lqmKQWvjpFK2WwJ58Xm6aPAbm6I4903902 a7bQyNNXEa7OO2CR+CtY64+u4tLz5scXH0MOz7YYGCuroKyDWOKPggtvcBkYeXhyPW SbXuo8v6tpjgw== Received: by mail-yb1-f178.google.com with SMTP id a64so13036382ybg.11; Tue, 31 May 2022 04:15:18 -0700 (PDT) X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM530+/jaMtKsb0p5mtCp0ybK2KSaJW+kGw0xRzeJ+z/E4wOn/pwHu UeU3EqzESrIfWqfCrEfBt0oeISiUJNJedP3u25E= X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJzib5WuqtNhjnhge2BPfWDo2FJWgi1Qcys5IM2Iv/hVgNJtSBxsL/pGrhAkQ4whDydRW9RKvkK9GP/C8I9PNXo= X-Received: by 2002:a25:4f0a:0:b0:64f:6a76:3d8f with SMTP id d10-20020a254f0a000000b0064f6a763d8fmr47846196ybb.134.1653995717866; Tue, 31 May 2022 04:15:17 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <358025d1-28e6-708b-d23d-3f22ae12a800@xen0n.name> In-Reply-To: From: Arnd Bergmann Date: Tue, 31 May 2022 13:15:01 +0200 X-Gmail-Original-Message-ID: Message-ID: Subject: Re: [musl] Re: [GIT PULL] asm-generic changes for 5.19 To: Huacai Chen Cc: musl@lists.openwall.com, WANG Xuerui , Linus Torvalds , linux-arch , GNU C Library , Yoshinori Sato , Peter Zijlstra , Marc Zyngier , Masahiro Yamada , Linux Kernel Mailing List , Jiaxun Yang , ACPI Devel Maling List , Jianmin Lv , linux-pci , Ard Biesheuvel , Huacai Chen Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-arch@vger.kernel.org On Tue, May 31, 2022 at 10:17 AM Huacai Chen wrote: > On Tue, May 31, 2022 at 4:09 PM Arnd Bergmann wrote: > > > > On Tue, May 31, 2022 at 9:50 AM Huacai Chen wrote: > > > On Mon, May 30, 2022 at 11:56 PM Arnd Bergmann wrote: > > > > On Mon, May 30, 2022 at 5:00 PM WANG Xuerui wrote: > > > > > Now I see > > > > > the loongarch-next HEAD is already rebased on top of what I believe to > > > > > be the current main branch, however I vaguely remember that it's not > > > > > good to base one's patches on top of "some random commit", so I wonder > > > > > whether the current branch state is appropriate for a PR? > > > > > > > > You are correct, a pull request should always be based on an -rc, orat least > > > > have the minimum set of dependencies. The branch was previously > > > > based on top of the spinlock implementation, which is still the best > > > > place to start here. > > > I have a difficult problem to select the base. Take swiotlb_init() as > > > an example: If I select 5.18-rc1, I should use swiotlb_init(1); if I > > > select Linus' latest tree, I should use swiotlb_init(true, > > > SWIOTLB_VERBOSE). However, if I select 5.18-rc1, linux-next will have > > > a build error because the code there expect swiotlb_init(true, > > > SWIOTLB_VERBOSE). > > > > Ok, I see. This is the kind of thing we normally prevent by having everything > > in linux-next for a few weeks before the merge window. How many issues > > like this are you aware of? If it's just the swiotlb, you could try merging > > the swiotlb branch that is in mainline now on top of the spinlock branch, > > and still get a minimum set of dependencies. If there are many more, > > then basing on top of the current mainline is probably less intrusive after > > all. > I have 3 issues: > 1, swiotlb_init(1) --> swiotlb_init(true, SWIOTLB_VERBOSE); > 2, the prototype of handle_kernel_image() should be changed from 5 > parameters to 6 parameters; > 3, the return value type of huge_ptep_get_and_clear() should be > changed from void to pte_t (and the function implementation should be > also changed). Ok, I see. Let's stay with the base on top of a mainline snapshot then. Arnd