On Tue, Nov 5, 2013 at 11:20 AM, Peter Robinson <pbrobinson@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Tue, Oct 29, 2013 at 1:28 PM, Josh Boyer <jwboyer@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> On Tue, Oct 29, 2013 at 8:48 AM, John Dulaney >> <jdulaney@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>>> Date: Wed, 23 Oct 2013 15:53:18 +0100 >>>> Subject: Re: Patch: Fix lpae on exynos5 >>>> From: pbrobinson@xxxxxxxxx >>>> To: jdulaney@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >>>> CC: kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >>>> >>>> John, >>>> >>>> Is there any upstream references to this? Has this been tested against >>>> the Fedora LPAE kernel config and are there any changes needed for >>>> that, oh and which version of the Fedora kernel? >>>> >>>> Peter >>> >>> Peter, >>> The source for this patch: >>> https://github.com/virtualopensystems/linux-kvm-arm/commit/32682304c9935dd0aa55ee9196429d0955f26fa1 >>> >>> I have tested it against the 3.11 and 3.12 kernels; the file it patches is also specific to exynos5. >> >> Thanks for the follow up. A few comments/questions. >> >> 1) If you send a patch, it needs to be properly attributed if you did >> not author it. That includes carrying forward the From: for >> authorship and the Signed-off-by lines. >> >> 2) The tree you pointed to appears to be some random github tree. >> That is not upstream. Upstream is the main torvalds tree, or allowing >> for ARM, the ARM maintainers tree and the ARM SoC trees. Now, it may >> well be that this github tree is widely used and feeds into one of the >> trees I mentioned, however it is really no different than pointing to >> a random patch somewhere until those commits show up in one of those >> trees. (Github commits don't show commentary on the patch either.) >> >> 3) The specific patch you provide was authored 6 months ago, and >> committed to github 3 months ago. I went and looked in linux-next, >> and it isn't there. I looked in the various branches of the arm-soc >> tree and it also isn't there. Given the patch is half a year old now >> and it still isn't even pending in the upstream tree, we'd wind up >> carrying this as a patch basically forever. I'm not keen on doing >> that. > > The only thing I can add to this is that we've dropped the exynos > multi platform patch from 3.12 as it didn't apply cleanly and upstream > had said it would land in 3.12 which it did not. At this point in time > there is no support for exynos HW in the rawhide kernel and hence it's > not on a supported list of platforms and looking at the upstream > arm-soc branch it looks unlikely to be so until at least 3.14 so I > don't see much point in this patch landing. OK, thanks. josh _______________________________________________ kernel mailing list kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/kernel
