Re: [PATCH 0/3] CXL updates for v6.19

Dave Jiang
2025-11-13T15:21:02Z

On 11/13/25 4:01 AM, Robert Richter wrote:
> On 12.11.25 14:45:28, Dave Jiang wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 11/12/25 1:51 PM, Robert Richter wrote:
>>> Sending optional and rather independent patches from v5 of the CXL
>>> address translation series [1] separately in this series. The patches
>>> could be applied together with early pick up candidates from the
>>> address translation series (namely patch #1 to #4 or #5).
>>>
>>> [1] https://patchwork.kernel.org/project/cxl/cover/20251112203143.1269944-1-rrichter@amd.com/
>>>
>>> Robert Richter (3):
>>> cxl: Simplify cxl_rd_ops allocation and handling
>>> cxl/acpi: Group xor arithmetric setup code in a single block
>>> cxl/region: Remove local variable @inc in cxl_port_setup_targets()
>>>
>>> drivers/cxl/acpi.c | 15 ++++-----------
>>> drivers/cxl/core/region.c | 25 +++++++------------------
>>> drivers/cxl/cxl.h | 2 +-
>>> 3 files changed, 12 insertions(+), 30 deletions(-)
>>>
>>
>> Hi Robert, I'm having issues applying to 6.18-rc4.
>>
>> Applying: cxl: Simplify cxl_rd_ops allocation and handling
>> Patch failed at 0001 cxl: Simplify cxl_rd_ops allocation and handling
>> error: patch failed: drivers/cxl/core/region.c:2958
>> error: drivers/cxl/core/region.c: patch does not apply
>
> You need to apply it on cxl/next. There are conflicts otherwise.

Hi Robert,
I actually need a series that cleanly applies to 6.18-rc4. I'll attempt to resolve the conflicts when I merge that branch to cxl/next. Of course a resolved public branch somewhere as guidance would be appreciated as well. Patches should not be based on cxl/next. Otherwise it gets really messy when I have to drop some changes due to issues.

>
> Additionally, patch 3/3 (@inc variable change) of this series also
> depends on patch 02/11 of v5 (store root decoder in in struct
> cxl_region). If you chose to pickup some patches from v5 first on top
> of cxl/next, then all this 3 patches should apply cleanly.
>
> Since 02/11 is one of the first patches and it sounded to me some of
> them will be applied as well, I would prefer that order to avoid
> rebasing and resubmitting a v6 for that. Let me know if you want to
> handle this differently.

Hmmm....maybe I should just take the entire series hopefully next cycle when it's ready given all the dependencies?