On Mon, Aug 14, 2023 at 5:52 PM Sean Christopherson <seanjc@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Mon, Aug 14, 2023, Raghavendra Rao Ananta wrote: > > On Mon, Aug 14, 2023 at 4:16 PM Sean Christopherson <seanjc@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > On Fri, Aug 11, 2023, Raghavendra Rao Ananta wrote: > > > > The series is based off of upstream v6.5-rc1. > > > > > > Lies! :-) > > > > > > This is based off one of the kvmarm.git topic branches (I didn't bother to figure > > > out which one), not v6.5-rc1. > > > > > Sorry, what am I missing here? My git log is as follows: > > Hmm, not sure what's going on. Maybe I misinterpreted why `git am` was failing? > I assumed it was because there were objects in kvmarm that I didn't have locally, > and fetching kvmarm allowed am to complete, though with 3-way merges, which IIUC > shouldn't have been necessary if I was using the exact same base. Or maybe I > messed up and didn't actually reset to 6.5-rc1. > > > $ git log --oneline upstream_tlbi_range_v9 > > 5025857507abe (upstream_tlbi_range_v9) KVM: arm64: Use TLBI > > range-based instructions for unmap > > 5c0291b99a8fc KVM: arm64: Invalidate the table entries upon a range > > 8c46b54d4aaec KVM: arm64: Flush only the memslot after write-protect > > 231abaeb7ffc2 KVM: arm64: Implement kvm_arch_flush_remote_tlbs_range() > > 5ec291b863309 KVM: arm64: Define kvm_tlb_flush_vmid_range() > > 5bcd7a085c34e KVM: arm64: Implement __kvm_tlb_flush_vmid_range() > > ea08f9dff7e5b arm64: tlb: Implement __flush_s2_tlb_range_op() > > b3178687947c9 arm64: tlb: Refactor the core flush algorithm of __flush_tlb_range > > a4850fa988eef KVM: Move kvm_arch_flush_remote_tlbs_memslot() to common code > > 306dc4e6afd37 KVM: Allow range-based TLB invalidation from common code > > d02785a0a1e01 KVM: Remove CONFIG_HAVE_KVM_ARCH_TLB_FLUSH_ALL > > 136fa2d254537 KVM: arm64: Use kvm_arch_flush_remote_tlbs() > > e35c68a75170d KVM: Declare kvm_arch_flush_remote_tlbs() globally > > 5d592777b9bba KVM: Rename kvm_arch_flush_remote_tlb() to > > kvm_arch_flush_remote_tlbs() > > 06c2afb862f9d (tag: v6.5-rc1, tag: linux/v6.5-rc1) Linux 6.5-rc1 > > c192ac7357683 MAINTAINERS 2: Electric Boogaloo > > f71f64210d698 Merge tag 'dma-mapping-6.5-2023-07-09' of > > git://git.infradead.org/users/hch/dma-mapping > > ... > > > > Isn't the commit, 06c2afb862f9d (06c2afb862f9d (tag: v6.5-rc1, tag: > > linux/v6.5-rc1) Linux 6.5-rc1) the 'base' commit? > > Ya, should be. > > Either way, even if this is PEBKAC on my end, using --base would be nice, e.g. > then you can definitely say it's my fault ;-) > I'll consider this, and thanks for the confirmation. - Raghavendra > > > Please try to incorporate git format-patch's "--base" option into your workflow, > > > e.g. I do "git format-patch --base=HEAD~$nr" where $nr is the number of patches > > > I am posting. > > > > > > It's not foolproof, e.g. my approach doesn't help if I have a local patch that > > > I'm not posting, but 99% of the time it Just Works and eliminates any ambuitity. > > > > > > You can also do "--base=auto", but that only does the right thing if your series > > > has its upstream branch set to the base/tree that you want your patches applied > > > to (I use the upstream branch for a completely different purpose for my dev branches).
