[PATCH][next] arm64: KVM: GICv3: move system register access to msr_s/mrs_s

[christoffer.dall@linaro.org (Christoffer Dall)]

On Thu, Jul 31, 2014 at 05:05:58PM +0100, Will Deacon wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 31, 2014 at 02:32:27PM +0100, Christoffer Dall wrote:
> > On Thu, Jul 31, 2014 at 02:19:47PM +0100, Will Deacon wrote:
> > > On Thu, Jul 31, 2014 at 02:16:39PM +0100, Marc Zyngier wrote:
> > > > Commit 72c583951526 (arm64: gicv3: Allow GICv3 compilation with
> > > > older binutils) changed the way we express the GICv3 system registers,
> > > > but couldn't change the occurences used by KVM as the code wasn't
> > > > merged yet.
> > > > 
> > > > Just fix the accessors.
> > > > 
> > > > Cc: Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com>
> > > > Cc: Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>
> > > > Cc: Christoffer Dall <christoffer.dall@linaro.org>
> > > > Signed-off-by: Marc Zyngier <marc.zyngier@arm.com>
> > > > ---
> > > > -next is currently borked. I suggest we take this patch via the kvmarm tree,
> > > > and only send our PR once the arm64 tree has hit Linus' tree. It contains
> > > > the same dependency on the GIC tree anyway.
> > > 
> > > I'm fine with that as long as Paulo doesn't mind waiting for the arm64 stuff
> > > to go in first (I have no reason to delay my pull request, so shouldn't be
> > > an issue).
> > > 
> > > If it helps:
> > > 
> > >   Acked-by: Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com>
> > > 
> > > I can't help but point out that we wouldn't be in this mess if you'd got
> > > your stuff into -next sooner ;)
> > > 
> > 
> > Well yes, but it was hard to plan our holidays around the deadlines and
> > unfortunately I couldn't find time to verify the kvmarm branch to make
> > it ready for -next inclusion before I went on holiday this time.  In any
> > case, this should be the exception rather than the rule, and I do try to
> > get the next branch ready as soon as possible usually.
> 
> Understood, but the communication could have been a lot better.
> 
> Whilst you were away, -next broke due to the non-virt parts of the GICv3
> driver (assumedly going via the irqchip tree?):
> 
>   http://lists.infradead.org/pipermail/linux-arm-kernel/2014-July/275410.html
> 
> Catalin fixed that up, and then Jason stated that the intention was for
> GICv3 to go via the arm64 tree (see above link). Based on that, we pulled
> his tag into our tree and applied our fix on top.
> 
> Now a bunch of stuff has cropped up out of nowhere causing conflicts and
> breakages for everybody ~3 days before the merge window opens (the code
> defaults to 'y'). We're not mind-readers, so all it would have taken is
> a mail to the relevant maintainers before everybody disappeared on holiday
> saying (a) what the merge plan is and (b) what to do if everything goes
> wrong while you're away.
> 
> Bah, maybe I'm just being grumpy...
> 
Besides from postponing my vacation I'm not really sure what I could
have done differently.  In this thread (on which you were cc'ed) I
really tried to make people aware of what was coming:

https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/pipermail/kvmarm/2014-July/010482.html

nobody replied to my last mail about something potentially messing stuff
up in the queue branch.

Maybe my fault was my reluctance to put patches that hadn't been able to
verify as working on a v8 platform into a branch that was pulled into
-next.  If I was being overly cautious in that sense, that's a fair
point and I can adjust future behavior for that.

Otherwise I think this was just an unfortunate series of events with a
lot of new stuff coming in combined with finding some nasty bugs.  Hey,
it happens.

Also, it's not like anyone sent me an e-mail saying URGENT, fix your
sh*t, in which case I would have dealt with it.

Seriously, if I'm being stupid, please tell me which e-mail I should
have sent to whom or what to have done differnently.

Thanks,
-Christoffer