On Wed, Jul 24, 2019 at 03:20:59PM +0100, Will Deacon wrote:
On Wed, Jul 24, 2019 at 04:16:49PM +0200, Andrey Konovalov wrote:
On Wed, Jul 24, 2019 at 4:02 PM Will Deacon will@kernel.org wrote:
On Tue, Jul 23, 2019 at 08:03:29PM +0200, Andrey Konovalov wrote:
Should this go through the mm or the arm tree?
I would certainly prefer to take at least the arm64 bits via the arm64 tree (i.e. patches 1, 2 and 15). We also need a Documentation patch describing the new ABI.
Sounds good! Should I post those patches together with the Documentation patches from Vincenzo as a separate patchset?
Yes, please (although as you say below, we need a new version of those patches from Vincenzo to address the feedback on v5). The other thing I should say is that I'd be happy to queue the other patches in the series too, but some of them are missing acks from the relevant maintainers (e.g. the mm/ and fs/ changes).
Ok, I've queued patches 1, 2, and 15 on a stable branch here:
https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/arm64/linux.git/log/?h=for-n...
which should find its way into -next shortly via our for-next/core branch. If you want to make changes, please send additional patches on top.
This is targetting 5.4, but I will drop it before the merge window if we don't have both of the following in place:
* Updated ABI documentation with Acks from Catalin and Kevin * The other patches in the series either Acked (so I can pick them up) or queued via some other tree(s) for 5.4.
Make sense?
Cheers,
Will