Re: [PATCH v6 00/14] ACPI NUMA support for ARM64

[David Daney]

On 05/11/2016 02:22 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Wed, May 11, 2016 at 11:08 PM, David Daney <ddaney@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > On 05/11/2016 01:35 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > > On Wed, May 11, 2016 at 12:40 PM, Will Deacon <will.deacon@xxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > > On Wed, May 11, 2016 at 02:43:11AM +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > > > > On Wed, Apr 27, 2016 at 8:07 PM, David Daney <ddaney.cavm@xxxxxxxxx>
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > From: David Daney <david.daney@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Based on git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/arm64/linux.git
> > > > > > for-next/core branch at commit 643d703d2d2d ("arm64: compat: Check for
> > > > > > AArch32 state")
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > [...]
> > > >
> > > > > > David Daney (2):
> > > > > >     arm64, numa: Cleanup NUMA disabled messages.
> > > > > >     acpi, numa, srat: Improve SRAT error detection and add messages.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Hanjun Guo (11):
> > > > > >     acpi, numa: Use pr_fmt() instead of printk
> > > > > >     acpi, numa: Replace ACPI_DEBUG_PRINT() with pr_debug()
> > > > > >     acpi, numa: remove duplicate NULL check
> > > > > >     acpi, numa: move acpi_numa_slit_init() to drivers/acpi/numa.c
> > > > > >     arm64, numa: rework numa_add_memblk()
> > > > > >     x86, acpi, numa: cleanup acpi_numa_processor_affinity_init()
> > > > > >     acpi, numa: move bad_srat() and srat_disabled() to
> > > > > >       drivers/acpi/numa.c
> > > > > >     acpi, numa: remove unneeded acpi_numa=1
> > > > > >     acpi, numa: Move acpi_numa_memory_affinity_init() to
> > > > > >       drivers/acpi/numa.c
> > > > > >     arm64, acpi, numa: NUMA support based on SRAT and SLIT
> > > > > >     acpi, numa: Enable ACPI based NUMA on ARM64
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Robert Richter (1):
> > > > > >     acpi, numa: Move acpi_numa_arch_fixup() to ia64 only
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > I need ACKs from the ARM64 maintainers on patches [6-7/13] and
> > > > > [13-14/14].
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > There's also a dependency on the arm64 for-next/core branch, so I've been
> > > > largely ignoring this as far as 4.6 is concerned and was planning to take
> > > > a proper look for 4.7 once the upcoming merge window is out of the way.
> > >
> > >
> > > That would be 4.7 and 4.8 respectively I suppose?
> > >
> > > Anyway, Catalin has ACKed all of them except for the [13/14], so
> > > technically I can apply [1-12/14] now and then [13-14/14] can be
> > > applied when they are ready.
> > >
> > > Do you think there will be any problems with merging [6-7/14] into 4.7
> > > via the ACPI tree?
> >
> > I would defer to the arm64 maintainers for decisions about the arm64
> > specific parts of the patch set.  That said, many of the arm64 specific
> > patches depend on the arm64 for-next/core branch, so you would have to be
> > careful about merge ordering if you pull these in before the for-next/core
> > branch is merged.
>
> Fair enough.  I will wait for an update then.
>
> > Also FWIW, I plan on addressing Catalin's comments about 13/14 and posting a
> > new version of the patch set in the next day or two.
>
> OK, but in that case it won't be considered for 4.7 (at least not by
> me), so I'd suggest sending it in the second half of the 4.7 merge
> window (or about that time).

To be candid, I would very much like for you to pull in as many of the 
patches as you are comfortable with as soon as possible.

I don't know where Will and Catalin stand on this, and their opinion is 
obviously important, but getting 1-12/14 merged to v4.7 and deferring 
the last two for v4.8 would simplify the whole process for me.  The 
drawback is carrying dead code around until the final parts are merged.

David Daney