Date:   Tue, 7 Mar 2023 12:51:55 +0000
From:   Conor Dooley <conor.dooley@microchip.com>
To:     Miguel Ojeda <miguel.ojeda.sandonis@gmail.com>
CC:     <linux-riscv@lists.infradead.org>, <conor@kernel.org>,
        Miguel Ojeda <ojeda@kernel.org>,
        Alex Gaynor <alex.gaynor@gmail.com>,
        Wedson Almeida Filho <wedsonaf@gmail.com>,
        Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@gmail.com>, Gary Guo <gary@garyguo.net>,
        =?iso-8859-1?Q?Bj=F6rn?= Roy Baron <bjorn3_gh@protonmail.com>,
        Jonathan Corbet <corbet@lwn.net>,
        Paul Walmsley <paul.walmsley@sifive.com>,
        Palmer Dabbelt <palmer@dabbelt.com>,
        Nathan Chancellor <nathan@kernel.org>,
        Nick Desaulniers <ndesaulniers@google.com>,
        Tom Rix <trix@redhat.com>, <rust-for-linux@vger.kernel.org>,
        <linux-doc@vger.kernel.org>, <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        <llvm@lists.linux.dev>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 2/2] RISC-V: enable building 64-bit kernels with rust
 support
Message-ID: <36af5bd6-883c-4968-8ace-2e31ec51907d@spud>
References: <20230307102441.94417-1-conor.dooley@microchip.com>
 <20230307102441.94417-3-conor.dooley@microchip.com>
 <CANiq72nLjBgMSUTtWuF7qU5vG9rA3v=ekWk1d6+SNiGkfcaS8Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <ZAcZeWYUU75BK5FO@wendy>
 <CANiq72kz2qxsB9JG7OB02KMAfy-YvokCFWMuEj_bkaY8i5tdVg@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha256;
        protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="OghjveGlJgfPwijn"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <CANiq72kz2qxsB9JG7OB02KMAfy-YvokCFWMuEj_bkaY8i5tdVg@mail.gmail.com>
Precedence: bulk

--OghjveGlJgfPwijn
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Tue, Mar 07, 2023 at 12:56:30PM +0100, Miguel Ojeda wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 7, 2023 at 12:01=E2=80=AFPM Conor Dooley <conor.dooley@microc=
hip.com> wrote:
> >
> > Cool. Git should resolve that, probably without even generating a
> > conflict in -next, right?
>=20
> I think it will conflict.
>=20
> Since the cleanup is elsewhere and it may add work for the -next
> maintainer, it is probably best to take it out in v2.

If you think it will conflict as-is, it's probably gonna conflict either
way.
You've pointed out several small bits, I'll send a v2 in a few days.

Cheers,
Conor.

--OghjveGlJgfPwijn
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc"

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----

iHUEABYIAB0WIQRh246EGq/8RLhDjO14tDGHoIJi0gUCZAczawAKCRB4tDGHoIJi
0q2zAQCGrMXmp1otmx9KctfrHf1Ol5KJTxzDmuBtPfHgBLOgQAEA74Ce5Fhsb+MK
1rRf0Dnx0FHgQLhpzxjlfV51kr0qUwc=
=QvX9
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--OghjveGlJgfPwijn--