Re: [PATCH v9 00/14] KVM: arm64: Add support for FEAT_TLBIRANGE

[Raghavendra Rao Ananta]

On Mon, Aug 14, 2023 at 4:16 PM Sean Christopherson <seanjc@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On Fri, Aug 11, 2023, Raghavendra Rao Ananta wrote:
> > The series is based off of upstream v6.5-rc1.
>
> Lies!  :-)
>
> This is based off one of the kvmarm.git topic branches (I didn't bother to figure
> out which one), not v6.5-rc1.
>
Sorry, what am I missing here? My git log is as follows:

$ git log --oneline upstream_tlbi_range_v9
5025857507abe (upstream_tlbi_range_v9) KVM: arm64: Use TLBI
range-based instructions for unmap
5c0291b99a8fc KVM: arm64: Invalidate the table entries upon a range
8c46b54d4aaec KVM: arm64: Flush only the memslot after write-protect
231abaeb7ffc2 KVM: arm64: Implement kvm_arch_flush_remote_tlbs_range()
5ec291b863309 KVM: arm64: Define kvm_tlb_flush_vmid_range()
5bcd7a085c34e KVM: arm64: Implement  __kvm_tlb_flush_vmid_range()
ea08f9dff7e5b arm64: tlb: Implement __flush_s2_tlb_range_op()
b3178687947c9 arm64: tlb: Refactor the core flush algorithm of __flush_tlb_range
a4850fa988eef KVM: Move kvm_arch_flush_remote_tlbs_memslot() to common code
306dc4e6afd37 KVM: Allow range-based TLB invalidation from common code
d02785a0a1e01 KVM: Remove CONFIG_HAVE_KVM_ARCH_TLB_FLUSH_ALL
136fa2d254537 KVM: arm64: Use kvm_arch_flush_remote_tlbs()
e35c68a75170d KVM: Declare kvm_arch_flush_remote_tlbs() globally
5d592777b9bba KVM: Rename kvm_arch_flush_remote_tlb() to
kvm_arch_flush_remote_tlbs()
06c2afb862f9d (tag: v6.5-rc1, tag: linux/v6.5-rc1) Linux 6.5-rc1
c192ac7357683 MAINTAINERS 2: Electric Boogaloo
f71f64210d698 Merge tag 'dma-mapping-6.5-2023-07-09' of
git://git.infradead.org/users/hch/dma-mapping
...

Isn't the commit, 06c2afb862f9d (06c2afb862f9d (tag: v6.5-rc1, tag:
linux/v6.5-rc1) Linux 6.5-rc1) the 'base' commit?

Thank you.
Raghavendra

> Please try to incorporate git format-patch's "--base" option into your workflow,
> e.g. I do "git format-patch --base=HEAD~$nr" where $nr is the number of patches
> I am posting.
>
> It's not foolproof, e.g. my approach doesn't help if I have a local patch that
> I'm not posting, but 99% of the time it Just Works and eliminates any ambuitity.
>
> You can also do "--base=auto", but that only does the right thing if your series
> has its upstream branch set to the base/tree that you want your patches applied
> to (I use the upstream branch for a completely different purpose for my dev branches).