[GIT PULL] RISC-V Patches for the 5.10 Merge Window, Part 1

Mon Oct 19 17:30:18 EDT 2020

On Mon, 19 Oct 2020 14:21:33 PDT (-0700), ardb at kernel.org wrote:
> On Mon, 19 Oct 2020 at 23:00, Palmer Dabbelt <palmer at dabbelt.com> wrote:
>>
>> On Mon, 19 Oct 2020 13:43:27 PDT (-0700), atishp at atishpatra.org wrote:
>> > On Mon, Oct 19, 2020 at 12:08 PM Palmer Dabbelt <palmer at dabbelt.com> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> The following changes since commit d012a7190fc1fd72ed48911e77ca97ba4521bccd:
>> >>
>> >>   Linux 5.9-rc2 (2020-08-23 14:08:43 -0700)
>> >>
>> >> are available in the Git repository at:
>> >>
>> >>   git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/riscv/linux.git tags/riscv-for-linus-5.10-mw0
>> >>
>> >> for you to fetch changes up to de22d2107ced3cc5355cc9dbbd85e44183546bd5:
>> >>
>> >>   RISC-V: Add page table dump support for uefi (2020-10-02 14:31:33 -0700)
>> >>
>> >> ----------------------------------------------------------------
>> >> RISC-V Patches for the 5.10 Merge Window, Part 1
>> >>
>> >> This contains a handful of cleanups and new features, including:
>> >>
>> >> * A handful of cleanups for our page fault handling.
>> >> * Improvements to how we fill out cacheinfo.
>> >> * Support for EFI-based systems.
>> >>
>> >> ---
>> >>
>> >> This contains a merge from the EFI tree that was necessary as some of the EFI
>> >> support landed over there.  It's my first time doing something like this,
>> >>
>> >> I haven't included the set_fs stuff because the base branch it depends on
>> >> hasn't been merged yet.  I'll probably have another merge window PR, as
>> >> there's more in flight (most notably the fix for new binutils I just sent out),
>> >> but I figured there was no reason to delay this any longer.
>> >>
>> >> There is one merge conflict, which is between my fixes and for-next branches:
>> >>
>> >>     diff --cc arch/riscv/kernel/vmlinux.lds.S
>> >>     index 67db80e12d1f,9795359cb9da..ffaa3da375c2
>> >>     --- a/arch/riscv/kernel/vmlinux.lds.S
>> >>     +++ b/arch/riscv/kernel/vmlinux.lds.S
>> >>     @@@ -66,8 -71,11 +70,13 @@@ SECTION
>> >>                     _etext = .;
>> >>             }
>> >>
>> >>      +      INIT_DATA_SECTION(16)
>> >>      +
>> >>     + #ifdef CONFIG_EFI
>> >>     +       . = ALIGN(PECOFF_SECTION_ALIGNMENT);
>> >>     +       __pecoff_text_end = .;
>> >>     + #endif
>> >>     +
>> >>             /* Start of data section */
>> >>             _sdata = .;
>> >>             RO_DATA(SECTION_ALIGN)
>> >>
>> >> ----------------------------------------------------------------
>> >> Anup Patel (1):
>> >>       RISC-V: Move DT mapping outof fixmap
>> >>
>> >> Ard Biesheuvel (3):
>> >>       efi/libstub: arm32: Base FDT and initrd placement on image address
>> >>       efi/libstub: Export efi_low_alloc_above() to other units
>> >>       efi/libstub: arm32: Use low allocation for the uncompressed kernel
>> >>
>> >
>> > I thought these 3 were being taken through the EFI tree. I already see
>> > them in the master branch.
>> >
>> > 762cd288fc4a efi/libstub: arm32: Use low allocation for the uncompressed kernel
>> > 1a895dbf4b66 efi/libstub: Export efi_low_alloc_above() to other units
>> > 6208857b8f7e efi/libstub: arm32: Base FDT and initrd placement on image address
>>
>> I see them in Linus' master with those exact hashes, so IIUC this is all OK?  I
>> guess I just assumed they were supposed to show up in the shortlog, but it's my
>> first time trying one of these multi-tree merges so maybe I screwed something
>> up?
>>
>> I obtained these by merging a tag from the EFI tree (that's already been
>> merged) into my tree, which looks OK to me:
>>
>>     commit 8a3f30c4319dc70547f11c18da2e7b5987543aa1
>>     gpg: Signature made Fri 02 Oct 2020 02:30:05 PM PDT
>>     gpg:                using RSA key 2B3C3747446843B24A943A7A2E1319F35FBB1889
>>     gpg:                issuer "palmer at dabbelt.com"
>>     gpg: Good signature from "Palmer Dabbelt <palmer at dabbelt.com>" [ultimate]
>>     gpg:                 aka "Palmer Dabbelt <palmerdabbelt at google.com>" [ultimate]
>>     merged tag 'efi-riscv-shared-for-v5.10'
>>     gpg: Signature made Wed 16 Sep 2020 08:57:07 AM PDT
>>     gpg:                using RSA key 9CD2A0DA6AD8F7330175E2BBC237207E9574FA7D
>>     gpg: Good signature from "Adriaan (Ard) Biesheuvel <ard.biesheuvel at linaro.org>" [unknown]
>>     gpg:                 aka "Adriaan (Ard) Biesheuvel <ard.biesheuvel at gmail.com>" [unknown]
>>     gpg:                 aka "Adriaan (Ard) Biesheuvel <ardb at kernel.org>" [unknown]
>>     gpg:                 aka "Adriaan (Ard) Biesheuvel <ard.biesheuvel at arm.com>" [unknown]
>>     gpg: WARNING: This key is not certified with a trusted signature!
>>     gpg:          There is no indication that the signature belongs to the owner.
>>     Primary key fingerprint: F43D 0332 8115 A198 C900  1688 3D20 0E9C A632 9909
>>          Subkey fingerprint: 9CD2 A0DA 6AD8 F733 0175  E2BB C237 207E 9574 FA7D
>>     Merge: 54701a0d12e2 762cd288fc4a
>>     Author: Palmer Dabbelt <palmerdabbelt at google.com>
>>     Date:   Fri Oct 2 14:29:51 2020 -0700
>>
>>         Merge tag 'efi-riscv-shared-for-v5.10' of ssh://gitolite.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/efi/efi into for-next
>>
>>         Stable branch for v5.10 shared between the EFI and RISC-V trees
>>
>>         The RISC-V EFI boot and runtime support will be merged for v5.10 via
>>         the RISC-V tree. However, it incorporates some changes that conflict
>>         with other EFI changes that are in flight, so this tag serves as a
>>         shared base that allows those conflicts to be resolved beforehand.
>>
>>         * tag 'efi-riscv-shared-for-v5.10' of ssh://gitolite.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/efi/efi:
>>           efi/libstub: arm32: Use low allocation for the uncompressed kernel
>>           efi/libstub: Export efi_low_alloc_above() to other units
>>           efi/libstub: arm32: Base FDT and initrd placement on image address
>>           efi: Rename arm-init to efi-init common for all arch
>>           include: pe.h: Add RISC-V related PE definition
>>
>> I think the actual issue here is just that whatever I pointed git to when
>> generating the PR didn't contain the merge of the shared code yet, so
>> git-shortlog included it?
>>
>
> This all looks fine. Usually in such cases, you don't know which
> branch will gets pulled first, so it makes sense for each PR to
> describe the shared changes.

OK, good to know -- I'd just been pointing my PRs at Linus' latest tag, rather
than directly at master, as it's less of a moving target.  Sounds like that's a
reasonable thing to do, so I'll probably keep doing it (unless I forget ;))

Linus: Looks like this was all actually fine, but LMK if you have any issues.