Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20230510195806.2902878-1-nphamcs@gmail.com> <20230511092843.3896327-1-nphamcs@gmail.com>
 <ZF4YEjiTOeu3jx+5@arm.com> <20230512141510.20075825899e3c869c5358ca@linux-foundation.org>
In-Reply-To: <20230512141510.20075825899e3c869c5358ca@linux-foundation.org>
From:   Nhat Pham <nphamcs@gmail.com>
Date:   Fri, 12 May 2023 14:47:50 -0700
Message-ID: <CAKEwX=P2VW_UfdxgLfYGOq1Bho+AtHt5pci+A7r95qJSSAEFtg@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] arm64: wire up cachestat for arm64
To:     Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Cc:     Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>,
        linux-api@vger.kernel.org, kernel-team@meta.com,
        linux-arch@vger.kernel.org, hannes@cmpxchg.org, linux-mm@kvack.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, arnd@arndb.de, will@kernel.org,
        linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Precedence: bulk

On Fri, May 12, 2023 at 2:15=E2=80=AFPM Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundatio=
n.org> wrote:
>
> On Fri, 12 May 2023 11:42:26 +0100 Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.c=
om> wrote:
>
> > On Thu, May 11, 2023 at 02:28:43AM -0700, Nhat Pham wrote:
> > > cachestat is a new syscall that was previously wired in for most
> > > architectures:
> > >
> > > https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20230503013608.2431726-1-nphamcs@gmail.c=
om/
> > > https://lore.kernel.org/linux-mm/20230510195806.2902878-1-nphamcs@gma=
il.com/
> > >
> > > However, those patches miss arm64, which has its own syscall table in=
 arch/arm64.
> > > This patch wires cachestat in for arm64.
> >
> > You may want to clarify that this is for compat support on arm64,
> > otherwise native support uses the generic syscall numbers already.
>
> Thanks, I updated the changelog thusly.  Note that this patch is
> transitory - it will be squashed into "cachestat: wire up cachestat for
> other architectures".

It's my expectation too - it makes sense to squash it to the other patch.
Thanks, Andrew!