On Tue, Apr 28, 2020 at 05:01:43PM +0100, Will Deacon wrote: > On Tue, Apr 28, 2020 at 04:58:12PM +0100, Mark Brown wrote: > > On Tue, Apr 28, 2020 at 04:18:16PM +0100, Will Deacon wrote: > > > On Tue, Apr 28, 2020 at 04:12:05PM +0100, Mark Brown wrote: > > > > > > It's probably easier for me if you just use the existing branch, I've > > > > already got a branch based on a merge down. > > > > > Okey doke, I'll funnel that in the direction of linux-next then. It does > > > mean that any subsequent patches for 5.8 that depend on BTI will need to > > > be based on this branch, so as long as you're ok with that then it's fine > > > by me (since I won't be able to apply patches if they refer to changes > > > introduced in the recent merge window). > > > > That's not a problem, that's what I've got already and if I try to send > > everything based off -rc3 directly the series would get unmanagably > > large. Actually unless you think it's a bad idea I think what I'll do > > is go and send out a couple of the preparatory changes (the insn updates > > and the last bit of annotation conversions) separately for that branch > > while I finalize the revisions of the main BTI kernel bit, hopefully > > that'll make the review a bit more approachable. > > Okey doke, sounds good to me. I'm queuing stuff atm, so as long you tell > me what I need to apply things against then we should be good. Just a heads up: I've renamed for-next/bti to for-next/bti-user, so it doesn't get confusing with the pending in-kernel BTI patches. All the commit SHAs remain unchanged. Will
