On Thu, Jun 15, 2023, Oliver Upton wrote: > +cc Sean > > On Wed, Jun 14, 2023 at 06:57:01PM -0700, Raghavendra Rao Ananta wrote: > > On Wed, Jun 14, 2023 at 5:19 AM Oliver Upton <oliver.upton@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > Hi Raghavendra, > > > > > > On Tue, Jun 06, 2023 at 07:28:51PM +0000, Raghavendra Rao Ananta wrote: > > > > The series is based off of upstream v6.4-rc2, and applied David > > > > Matlack's common API for TLB invalidations[1] on top. > > > > > > Sorry I didn't spot the dependency earlier, but this isn't helpful TBH. > > > > > > David's series was partially applied, and what remains no longer cleanly > > > applies to the base you suggest. Independent of that, my *strong* > > > preference is that you just send out a series containing your patches as > > > well as David's. Coordinating dependent efforts is the only sane thing > > > to do. Also, those patches are 5 months old at this point which is > > > ancient history. > > > > > Would you rather prefer I detach this series from David's as I'm not > > sure what his plans are for future versions? > > On the other hand, the patches seem simple enough to rebase and give > > another shot at review, but may end up delaying this series. > > WDYT? > > In cases such as this you'd typically coordinate with the other > developer to pick up their changes as part of your series. Especially > for this case -- David's refactoring is _pointless_ without another > user for that code (i.e. arm64). As fun as it might be to antagonize > Sean, that series pokes x86 and I'd like an ack from on it. > > So, please post a combined series that applies cleanly to an early 6.4 > rc of your choosing, and cc all affected reviewers/maintainers. +1
