From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: linux@arm.linux.org.uk (Russell King - ARM Linux)
Date: Wed, 25 May 2011 21:52:49 +0100
Subject: [PATCH 0/5] ARMv6 and ARMv7 mm fixes
In-Reply-To: <4DDD464F.2010508@codeaurora.org>
References: <1305890399-29075-1-git-send-email-will.deacon@arm.com>
	<4DDC2A59.8030109@codeaurora.org>
	<002f01cc1ada$5e7ffaa0$1b7fefe0$@deacon@arm.com>
	<4DDD464F.2010508@codeaurora.org>
Message-ID: <20110525205249.GD24876@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk>
To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org

On Wed, May 25, 2011 at 11:11:27AM -0700, Stephen Boyd wrote:
> On 05/25/2011 05:50 AM, Will Deacon wrote:
> > I was planning to CC stable for patches 1 ("ARM: cache: ensure MVA is cacheline
> > aligned in flush_kern_dcache_area") and 4 ("ARM: mm: fix racy ASID rollover
> > broadcast on SMP platforms") as these affect existing v6 and v7 cores. The
> > remainder of the patches, although nice to have, only kick in on A15 as far as
> > I'm aware (due to aggressive caching of speculative level 1 entries).
> 
> Would it be appropriate to reorder the series then so patches 1 and 4
> come first?

I'm not entirely convinced (4) is the best solution yet, but that's
mainly becaues I've not thought about it enough yet.  1-3 look fine
though.

> > I was hoping for some acks/tested-bys before then since these changes affect a
> > lot of platforms and the code is fairly scary.
> 
> Yes the patches look scary. I could give it a test on MSM but I'm not
> even sure that will help much. Why didn't you Cc Russell on these patches?

I do tend to read about 90% of linux-arm-kernel, whether its cc'd to
me or not.  The cc doesn't really affect whether I read it or not.