On Wed, 26 Jun 2019 15:45:47 +0000 Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Wed, Jun 26, 2019 at 08:38:29AM -0700, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > > On Wed, Jun 26, 2019 at 01:31:40PM +0100, Mark Rutland wrote: > > > On Wed, Jun 26, 2019 at 12:35:33AM -0700, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > > > > Robin, Andrew: > > > > > > As a heads-up, Robin is currently on holiday, so this is all down to > > > Andrew's preference. > > > > > > > I have a series for the hmm tree, which touches the section size > > > > bits, and remove device public memory support. > > > > > > > > It might be best if we include this series in the hmm tree as well > > > > to avoid conflicts. Is it ok to include the rebase version of at least > > > > the cleanup part (which looks like it is not required for the actual > > > > arm64 support) in the hmm tree to avoid conflicts? > > > > > > Per the cover letter, the arm64 patch has a build dependency on the > > > others, so that might require a stable brnach for the common prefix. > > > > I guess we'll just have to live with the merge errors then, as the > > mm tree is a patch series and thus can't easily use a stable base > > tree. That is unlike Andrew wants to pull in the hmm tree as a prep > > patch for the series. > > It looks like the first three patches apply cleanly to hmm.git .. > > So what we can do is base this 4 patch series off rc6 and pull the > first 3 into hmm and the full 4 into arm.git. We use this workflow often > with rdma and netdev. > > Let me know and I can help orchestate this. Well. Whatever works. In this situation I'd stage the patches after linux-next and would merge them up after the prereq patches have been merged into mainline. Easy.
