From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: linux@arm.linux.org.uk (Russell King - ARM Linux)
Date: Tue, 6 Dec 2011 20:45:04 +0000
Subject: [GIT PULL v2] Linux support for ARM LPAE
In-Reply-To: <20111206203416.GV14542@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk>
References: <20111206152955.GC31720@arm.com>
 <20111206203416.GV14542@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk>
Message-ID: <20111206204504.GW14542@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk>
To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org

On Tue, Dec 06, 2011 at 08:34:16PM +0000, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 06, 2011 at 03:29:55PM +0000, Catalin Marinas wrote:
> > I updated the series with an additional signed-off-by to your patch. The
> > code is unchanged. Could you please pull it again?
> 
> I will for this time only, but note - last time you said:
> 
> > If there are no further comments, could you please pull the ARM LPAE
> > branch below? They should be merged after Will's idmap patches (no real
> > conflict, just correctly functioning setup_mm_for_reboot).
> 
> Now, the thing is, merging it after Will's patches won't solve that in
> any shape or form - it really does not matter what order I do the merges
> in, the fact of the matter is that there is no ordering or dependence
> between your patches and Will's, so there's no guarantee that your code
> will see a properly functioning setup_mm_for_reboot.
> 
> If you actually depend on something in some other tree, you need to have
> it merged into your tree _before_ the objects which depend on it.
> 
> So, what the above comment admits to me is that "what I'm asking you to
> pull is known to be broken if a git-bisect hits one of these commits,
> but I don't care."
> 
> As I said, I will merge it this time around, but next time I won't.

Well, I might do if you told me that your changes conflict with Will's
idmap changes in arch/arm/mm/idmap.c:

++<<<<<<< HEAD
 +extern char  __idmap_text_start[], __idmap_text_end[];
++=======
+ #ifdef CONFIG_SMP
+ static void idmap_del_pmd(pud_t *pud, unsigned long addr, unsigned long end)
+ {
+       pmd_t *pmd;
+
+       if (pud_none_or_clear_bad(pud))
+               return;
+       pmd = pmd_offset(pud, addr);
+       pmd_clear(pmd);
+ }
++>>>>>>> cf9a53fb7cf8dd2fd2b5d7bb07434bd2ebeb5a8f

I'm assuming that idmap_del_pmd() just gets deleted?

Alternatively, if you wish to fix the dependencies of your commits and
resubmit a pull request, let me know.