Hi, Arnd, On Tue, May 31, 2022 at 7:15 PM Arnd Bergmann <arnd@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Tue, May 31, 2022 at 10:17 AM Huacai Chen <chenhuacai@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Tue, May 31, 2022 at 4:09 PM Arnd Bergmann <arnd@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > On Tue, May 31, 2022 at 9:50 AM Huacai Chen <chenhuacai@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > On Mon, May 30, 2022 at 11:56 PM Arnd Bergmann <arnd@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > On Mon, May 30, 2022 at 5:00 PM WANG Xuerui <kernel@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > Now I see > > > > > > the loongarch-next HEAD is already rebased on top of what I believe to > > > > > > be the current main branch, however I vaguely remember that it's not > > > > > > good to base one's patches on top of "some random commit", so I wonder > > > > > > whether the current branch state is appropriate for a PR? > > > > > > > > > > You are correct, a pull request should always be based on an -rc, orat least > > > > > have the minimum set of dependencies. The branch was previously > > > > > based on top of the spinlock implementation, which is still the best > > > > > place to start here. > > > > I have a difficult problem to select the base. Take swiotlb_init() as > > > > an example: If I select 5.18-rc1, I should use swiotlb_init(1); if I > > > > select Linus' latest tree, I should use swiotlb_init(true, > > > > SWIOTLB_VERBOSE). However, if I select 5.18-rc1, linux-next will have > > > > a build error because the code there expect swiotlb_init(true, > > > > SWIOTLB_VERBOSE). > > > > > > Ok, I see. This is the kind of thing we normally prevent by having everything > > > in linux-next for a few weeks before the merge window. How many issues > > > like this are you aware of? If it's just the swiotlb, you could try merging > > > the swiotlb branch that is in mainline now on top of the spinlock branch, > > > and still get a minimum set of dependencies. If there are many more, > > > then basing on top of the current mainline is probably less intrusive after > > > all. > > I have 3 issues: > > 1, swiotlb_init(1) --> swiotlb_init(true, SWIOTLB_VERBOSE); > > 2, the prototype of handle_kernel_image() should be changed from 5 > > parameters to 6 parameters; > > 3, the return value type of huge_ptep_get_and_clear() should be > > changed from void to pte_t (and the function implementation should be > > also changed). > > Ok, I see. Let's stay with the base on top of a mainline snapshot then. https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/chenhuacai/linux-loongson.git/log/?h=loongarch-next has been updated. Now this branch droped irqchip drivers and pci drivers. But the existing irqchip drivers need some small adjustment to avoid build errors [1], and I hope Marc can give an Acked-by. Thanks. This branch can be built with defconfig and allmodconfig (except drivers/platform/surface/aggregator/controller.c, because it requires 8bit/16bit cmpxchg, which I was told to remove their support). [1] https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/e7cf33a170d0b4e98e53744f60dbf922@xxxxxxxxxx/T/#t Huacai > > Arnd
