On Tue, Dec 12, 2023 at 8:58 PM Russell King (Oracle) <linux@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Mon, Dec 04, 2023 at 06:23:02PM +0000, Russell King (Oracle) wrote: > > On Tue, Oct 24, 2023 at 08:26:58PM +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > > > On Tue, Oct 24, 2023 at 5:15 PM Russell King (Oracle) > > > <linux@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > > > Hi, > > > > > > > > I'm posting James' patch set updated with most of the review comments > > > > from his RFC v2 series back in September. Individual patches have a > > > > changelog attached at the bottom of the commit message. Those which > > > > I have finished updating have my S-o-b on them, those which still have > > > > outstanding review comments from RFC v2 do not. In some of these cases > > > > I've asked questions and am waiting for responses. > > > > > > > > I'm posting this as RFC v3 because there's still some unaddressed > > > > comments and it's clearly not ready for merging. Even if it was ready > > > > to be merged, it is too late in this development cycle to be taking > > > > this change in, so there would be little point posting it non-RFC. > > > > Also James stated that he's waiting for confirmation from the > > > > Kubernetes/Kata folk - I have no idea what the status is there. > > > > > > > > I will be sending each patch individually to a wider audience > > > > appropriate for that patch - apologies to those missing out on this > > > > cover message. I have added more mailing lists to the series with the > > > > exception of the acpica list in a hope of this cover message also > > > > reaching those folk. > > > > > > > > The changes that aren't included are: > > > > > > > > 1. Updates for my patch that was merged via Thomas (thanks!): > > > > c4dd854f740c cpu-hotplug: Provide prototypes for arch CPU registration > > > > rather than having this change spread through James' patches. > > > > > > > > 2. New patch - simplification of PA-RISC's smp_prepare_boot_cpu() > > > > > > > > 3. Moved "ACPI: Use the acpi_device_is_present() helper in more places" > > > > and "ACPI: Rename acpi_scan_device_not_present() to be about > > > > enumeration" to the beginning of the series - these two patches are > > > > already queued up for merging into 6.7. > > > > > > > > 4. Moved "arm64, irqchip/gic-v3, ACPI: Move MADT GICC enabled check into > > > > a helper" to the beginning of the series, which has been submitted, > > > > but as yet the fate of that posting isn't known. > > > > > > > > The first four patches in this series are provided for completness only. > > > > > > > > There is an additional patch in James' git tree that isn't in the set > > > > of patches that James posted: "ACPI: processor: Only call > > > > arch_unregister_cpu() if HOTPLUG_CPU is selected" which looks to me to > > > > be a workaround for arch_unregister_cpu() being under the ifdef. I've > > > > commented on this on the RFC v2 posting making a suggestion, but as yet > > > > haven't had any response. > > > > > > > > I've included almost all of James' original covering body below the > > > > diffstat. > > > > > > > > The reason that I'm doing this is to help move this code forward so > > > > hopefully it can be merged - which is why I have been keen to dig out > > > > from James' patches anything that can be merged and submit it > > > > separately, since this is a feature for which some users have a > > > > definite need for. > > > > > > I've gone through the series and there is at least one thing in it > > > that concerns me a lot and some others that at least appear to be > > > really questionable. > > > > > > I need more time to send comments which I'm not going to do before the > > > 6.7 merge window (sorry), but from what I can say right now, this is > > > not looking good. > > > > Hi Rafael, > > > > Will you be able to send your comments, so that we can find out what > > your other concerns are please? I'm getting questions from interested > > parties who want to know what your concerns are. > > > > Nothing much has changed to the ACPI changes, so I think it's still > > valid to have the comments back for this. > > Hi Rafael, > > Another gentle prod on this... There was a selection of the patches in the series sent separately and I believe that some of them have been applied already. Can you please send the remaining patches again so it is clear what's still outstanding?
