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

[Rafael J. Wysocki]

On Thu, May 12, 2016 at 10:56 AM, Will Deacon <will.deacon at arm.com> wrote:
> On Thu, May 12, 2016 at 12:29:02AM +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
>> On Wed, May 11, 2016 at 11:30 PM, David Daney <ddaney at caviumnetworks.com> wrote:
>> > On 05/11/2016 02:22 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
>> >> On Wed, May 11, 2016 at 11:08 PM, David Daney <ddaney at caviumnetworks.com>
>> >> 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 at arm.com>
>> >>>> wrote:
>> >>>>> On Wed, May 11, 2016 at 02:43:11AM +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
>> >>>>> 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?
>
> Argh, yes, of course! :)
>
>> >>>>
>> >>>> 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.
>>
>> That is not unheard of, however.
>>
>> OK, I'll try to put the [1-12/14] into my linux-next branch early next
>> week and we'll see if that triggers any conflicts.
>
> I'd really much rather this waited until after the merge window.

That's fine by me, so I guess my previous request for the next version
to be sent by the end of the merge window applies. :-)

> My understanding is that it's bad practice to put stuff into -next during the
> merge window,

Unless you want to push that stuff to Linus during the merge window in
progress, that is.

> and you'd end up having to send a pull based on a random
> commit (the arm64 pull request?) in the second half. On top of that, this
> series would get very little exposure in -next during that time.
>
> On the other hand, putting this into linux-next after the merge window
> gives us time for testing, allows David to rework patch 13 (which is aiming
> for 4.8 anyway iiuc) and avoids merge window churn.

OK