On 6/3/22 15:20, Huacai Chen wrote:
> V13 -> V14:
> 1, Add some missing Cc;
> 2, Add a comment for EFI_RT_VIRTUAL_LIMIT definition.
>
> V14 -> V15:
> 1, Remove EFISTUB for now, since the design detail need further discussion.
Thanks for the quick followup revision!
So I've pulled the latest loongarch-next HEAD (commit
fb575e32bdd27d57b1587227abea8d4ea2eccb71), and did allmodconfig builds
of ARCH={x86,mips,loongarch}. I used the LoongArch cross-toolchain
compiled by Arnd and my own Gentoo toolchains (native & crossdev) for
x86 and mips; no new problem is found.
Diff between this revision and the previous revision I tested (I think
it's v13) is just removal of the non-reviewed architecture-independent
EFI changes, which is good, and I believe we now have every commit here
ready for PR. (In theory, Eric didn't respond to my previous mail to
approve the signal.h UAPI, but I can confirm that his concerns are fully
addressed, which involved spelling suggestion and prefixes to the type
names.)
On the v14 thread, Bagas suggested that the ASCII art in the
documentation in single-cell table form be replaced with ordinary code
blocks, which I think is reasonable due to consistency; but we already
got 2 revisions of this patchset today, and each revision adds 25 mails
to everyone's inbox, so I think Huacai could just apply the changes,
collect the Tested-by, and just push to the loongarch-next branch
instead (and replying here of course).
So, Arnd, do you think we can go ahead and send the PR today or
tomorrow? I know this batch of modification didn't get included in
today's linux-next, but there's little substantive change, and Stephen
didn't mention that there will be no linux-next tomorrow, so the timing
might still work out. We may want to get the final Acked-by from Ard for
the now stripped-down Patch 11, though, I'm not entirely sure.