On Wed, Jul 24, 2019 at 03:20:59PM +0100, Will Deacon wrote: > On Wed, Jul 24, 2019 at 04:16:49PM +0200, Andrey Konovalov wrote: > > On Wed, Jul 24, 2019 at 4:02 PM Will Deacon <will@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > On Tue, Jul 23, 2019 at 08:03:29PM +0200, Andrey Konovalov wrote: > > > > Should this go through the mm or the arm tree? > > > > > > I would certainly prefer to take at least the arm64 bits via the arm64 tree > > > (i.e. patches 1, 2 and 15). We also need a Documentation patch describing > > > the new ABI. > > > > Sounds good! Should I post those patches together with the > > Documentation patches from Vincenzo as a separate patchset? > > Yes, please (although as you say below, we need a new version of those > patches from Vincenzo to address the feedback on v5). The other thing I > should say is that I'd be happy to queue the other patches in the series > too, but some of them are missing acks from the relevant maintainers (e.g. > the mm/ and fs/ changes). Ok, I've queued patches 1, 2, and 15 on a stable branch here: https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/arm64/linux.git/log/?h=for-next/tbi which should find its way into -next shortly via our for-next/core branch. If you want to make changes, please send additional patches on top. This is targetting 5.4, but I will drop it before the merge window if we don't have both of the following in place: * Updated ABI documentation with Acks from Catalin and Kevin * The other patches in the series either Acked (so I can pick them up) or queued via some other tree(s) for 5.4. Make sense? Cheers, Will
