On Thu, Jul 8, 2021 at 9:29 PM Bin Meng bmeng.cn@gmail.com wrote:
Hi Palmer,
On Thu, Jul 1, 2021 at 10:20 AM Bin Meng bmeng.cn@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Jul 1, 2021 at 10:08 AM Kefeng Wang wangkefeng.wang@huawei.com wrote:
On 2021/6/30 19:58, Bin Meng wrote:
On Mon, Jun 28, 2021 at 11:21 AM Bin Meng bmeng.cn@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Jun 28, 2021 at 10:28 AM Kefeng Wang wangkefeng.wang@huawei.com wrote:
On 2021/6/28 9:15, Bin Meng wrote: > On Mon, Jun 28, 2021 at 8:53 AM Kefeng Wang wangkefeng.wang@huawei.com wrote: >> Hi， sorry for the mistake，the bug is fixed by >> >> https://lore.kernel.org/linux-riscv/20210602085517.127481-2-wangkefeng.wang@... > What are we on the patch you mentioned? > > I don't see it applied in the linux/master. > > Also there should be a "Fixes" tag and stable@vger.kernel.org cc'ed > because 32-bit is broken since v5.12. https://kernel.googlesource.com/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/riscv/linux/+/c9811...
it's on Palmer' riscv-next.
Not sure riscv-next is for which release? This is a regression and should be on 5.13.
Hi Palmer, should I resend or could you help me to add the fixes tag?
Your patch mixed 2 things (fix plus one feature) together, so it is not proper to back port your patch.
"mem=" will change the range of memblock, so the fix part must be included.
Yes, so you can rebase the "mem=" changes on top of my patch.
The practice is that we should not mix 2 things in one patch. I can imagine that you wanted to add "mem=" to RISC-V and suddenly found the existing logic was broken, so you sent one patch to do both.
Here is my 2 cents:
- Drop your patch from riscv-next
- Apply my patch as it is a simple fix to previous commit. This
allows stable kernel to cherry-pick the fix to v5.12 and v5.13. 3. Rebase your patch against mine, and resend v2
Let me know if this makes sense.
It is not a big problem for me, but I have no right abourt riscv-next,
let's wait Palmer's advise.
Sure. Palmer, let me know your thoughts.
Ping?
Ping?