Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
Date:   Tue, 12 May 2020 15:44:45 +0100
From:   Will Deacon <will@kernel.org>
To:     Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@linux-m68k.org>
Cc:     Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>,
        Linux ARM <linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] arm64: cpufeature: Add "or" to mitigations for multiple
 errata
Message-ID: <20200512144445.GE3021@willie-the-truck>
References: <20200512124238.28792-1-geert+renesas@glider.be>
 <20200512141200.GD3021@willie-the-truck>
 <CAMuHMdXM5GGXvxEemmLtcTU14nKgKVmO_yON+7+pLnUv2oExtQ@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <CAMuHMdXM5GGXvxEemmLtcTU14nKgKVmO_yON+7+pLnUv2oExtQ@mail.gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.10.1 (2018-07-13)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Tue, May 12, 2020 at 04:38:19PM +0200, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
> On Tue, May 12, 2020 at 4:12 PM Will Deacon <will@kernel.org> wrote:
> > On Tue, May 12, 2020 at 02:42:38PM +0200, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
> > > Several actions are not mitigations for a single erratum, but for
> > > multiple errata.  However, printing a line like
> > >
> > >     CPU features: detected: ARM errata 1165522, 1319367, 1530923
> > >
> > > may give the false impression that all three listed errata have been
> > > detected.  This can confuse the user, who may think his Cortex-A57 is
> > > suddenly affected by Cortex-A76 and Cortex-A55 errata.
> > >
> > > Add "or" to all descriptions for mitigations for multiple errata, to
> > > make it clear that only one or more of the errata printed are
> > > applicable, and not necessarily all of them.
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Geert Uytterhoeven <geert+renesas@glider.be>
> > > ---
> > >  arch/arm64/kernel/cpu_errata.c | 6 +++---
> > >  1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
> >
> > This seems to conflict with the other patch you sent to reorder the entries.
> 
> My reordering applied to the Kconfig file.

Sorry, you're right. Your patch didn't apply on top of that, so I wrongly
assumed that it was the culprit.

> > Please can you send another version, based on the arm64 for-next/kconfig
> > branch?
> 
> Then it will conflict with commit 02ab1f5018c3ad0b ("arm64: Unify
> WORKAROUND_SPECULATIVE_AT_{NVHE,VHE}") from for-next/kvm/errata?

Ah, that's ok. I recreate for-next/core so I have flexibility in dropping
branches if they cause problems. Please can you send a version against
for-next/kconfig, and I'll handle the conflict now that you've pointed it
out/

Cheers,

Will