Re: [PATCH v3 0/4] Devmap cleanups + arm64 support
From: Andrew Morton
Date: Wed Jun 26 2019 - 23:35:54 EST
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.