Hi Russel,
From: Russell King linux@armlinux.org.uk Sent: Friday, October 20, 2023 5:30 PM To: Salil Mehta salil.mehta@huawei.com
On Fri, Oct 20, 2023 at 11:13:51AM +0100, Russell King (Oracle) wrote:
On Fri, Oct 20, 2023 at 11:10:06AM +0100, Russell King (Oracle) wrote:
On Fri, Oct 20, 2023 at 09:51:34AM +0000, Salil Mehta wrote:
It has been sent, it has been reviewed, comments have been provided, and suggestions made. James has been silent since posting it.
AFAICS there was only a RFC V2 version which was sent on Wed, 13 Sep 2023 and not a non-RFC version. Sorry, if I am missing something
https://lore.kernel.org/linux-arm-kernel/20230913163823.7880-1-james.morse@a...
Yes, you're right, and I've just noticed I've been rebasing James' old patch set, not his new one (since he used the same tag/branch name in two different trees.) Sorting that out at the moment...
Consequently, I've pressed ahead with one of the changes I proposed, giving James a chance to object, but heard nothing. It is now merged into mainline kernels.
https://lore.kernel.org/linux-arm-kernel/E1qkoRr-0088Q8-Da@rmk-PC.armlinux.o...
This one - right?
No, an earlier version was merged:
https://lore.kernel.org/linux-arm-kernel/E1qgnh2-007ZRZ-WD@rmk-PC.armlinux.o...
because I was given misleading feedback on that, which meant that the non-RFC version you linked to was broken. Since the non-RFC version and the RFC v2 version were identical except for the ia64 bits, Thomas merged the RFC v2 version to avoid breaking ia64.
... and it looks like James has also suffered the same misinformation problem, ending up dropping all the ia64 changes from his posted series that were in the earlier patch set in his other tree. So I need to do some rework of his series to put everything back together...
So I'm retracting getting another series out today... I will if I can, but I'm not guaranteeing it!
I'm afraid it isn't going to happen - going through the review comments there's some ambiguities there (at least to me) that I can't solve without input from the reviewers. I haven't even managed to get half way through the patches yet.
Possible to share the link of the specific review comments and the patches you are referring to here?
Thanks
I've pushed out an updated version to the CGIT URL I gave earlier. Essentially, the commits that have my sign-off have been updated, those which don't have my sign-off are outstanding.
Ok.
Also, I am preparing RFC V3 for Qemu changes. Is it safe to use that repository for testing? Or should I keep on using RFC V2 patch-set for testing which James floated in September?
I've re-ordered some of the patches as well (due to some of the review comments) and added one of my own (for parisc) updating James' commit description in one of his later patches. I've updated the commentry below the "---" marker that James had where I've made changes.
Ok.
Thanks Salil.