On Wed, May 11, 2016 at 11:30 PM, David Daney <ddaney@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On 05/11/2016 02:22 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: >> >> On Wed, May 11, 2016 at 11:08 PM, David Daney <ddaney@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> >> wrote: >>> >>> On 05/11/2016 01:35 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> On Wed, May 11, 2016 at 12:40 PM, Will Deacon <will.deacon@xxxxxxx> >>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Wed, May 11, 2016 at 02:43:11AM +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On Wed, Apr 27, 2016 at 8:07 PM, David Daney <ddaney.cavm@xxxxxxxxx> >>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> From: David Daney <david.daney@xxxxxxxxxx> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Based on >>>>>>> git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/arm64/linux.git >>>>>>> for-next/core branch at commit 643d703d2d2d ("arm64: compat: Check >>>>>>> for >>>>>>> AArch32 state") >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> [...] >>>>> >>>>>>> David Daney (2): >>>>>>> arm64, numa: Cleanup NUMA disabled messages. >>>>>>> acpi, numa, srat: Improve SRAT error detection and add messages. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Hanjun Guo (11): >>>>>>> acpi, numa: Use pr_fmt() instead of printk >>>>>>> acpi, numa: Replace ACPI_DEBUG_PRINT() with pr_debug() >>>>>>> acpi, numa: remove duplicate NULL check >>>>>>> acpi, numa: move acpi_numa_slit_init() to drivers/acpi/numa.c >>>>>>> arm64, numa: rework numa_add_memblk() >>>>>>> x86, acpi, numa: cleanup acpi_numa_processor_affinity_init() >>>>>>> acpi, numa: move bad_srat() and srat_disabled() to >>>>>>> drivers/acpi/numa.c >>>>>>> acpi, numa: remove unneeded acpi_numa=1 >>>>>>> acpi, numa: Move acpi_numa_memory_affinity_init() to >>>>>>> drivers/acpi/numa.c >>>>>>> arm64, acpi, numa: NUMA support based on SRAT and SLIT >>>>>>> acpi, numa: Enable ACPI based NUMA on ARM64 >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Robert Richter (1): >>>>>>> acpi, numa: Move acpi_numa_arch_fixup() to ia64 only >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> I need ACKs from the ARM64 maintainers on patches [6-7/13] and >>>>>> [13-14/14]. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> There's also a dependency on the arm64 for-next/core branch, so I've >>>>> been >>>>> largely ignoring this as far as 4.6 is concerned and was planning to >>>>> take >>>>> a proper look for 4.7 once the upcoming merge window is out of the way. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> That would be 4.7 and 4.8 respectively I suppose? >>>> >>>> Anyway, Catalin has ACKed all of them except for the [13/14], so >>>> technically I can apply [1-12/14] now and then [13-14/14] can be >>>> applied when they are ready. >>>> >>>> Do you think there will be any problems with merging [6-7/14] into 4.7 >>>> via the ACPI tree? >>>> >>> >>> I would defer to the arm64 maintainers for decisions about the arm64 >>> specific parts of the patch set. That said, many of the arm64 specific >>> patches depend on the arm64 for-next/core branch, so you would have to be >>> careful about merge ordering if you pull these in before the >>> for-next/core >>> branch is merged. >> >> >> Fair enough. I will wait for an update then. >> >>> Also FWIW, I plan on addressing Catalin's comments about 13/14 and >>> posting a >>> new version of the patch set in the next day or two. >> >> >> OK, but in that case it won't be considered for 4.7 (at least not by >> me), so I'd suggest sending it in the second half of the 4.7 merge >> window (or about that time). > > > To be candid, I would very much like for you to pull in as many of the > patches as you are comfortable with as soon as possible. > > I don't know where Will and Catalin stand on this, and their opinion is > obviously important, but getting 1-12/14 merged to v4.7 and deferring the > last two for v4.8 would simplify the whole process for me. The drawback is > carrying dead code around until the final parts are merged. That is not unheard of, however. OK, I'll try to put the [1-12/14] into my linux-next branch early next week and we'll see if that triggers any conflicts. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-ia64" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
![]() |