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: <20230606192858.3600174-1-rananta@google.com> <ZImwRAuSXcVt3UPV@linux.dev>
 <CAJHc60wUSNpFLeESWcpEa5OmN4bJg9wBre-2k8803WHpn03LGw@mail.gmail.com>
 <ZIrONR6cSegiK1e2@linux.dev> <ZIscwv1NABW+wZ4J@google.com>
In-Reply-To: <ZIscwv1NABW+wZ4J@google.com>
From:   Raghavendra Rao Ananta <rananta@google.com>
Date:   Thu, 15 Jun 2023 10:26:05 -0700
Message-ID: <CAJHc60y523wJ0gZBm0o6vkYXdyus3QQC3t5W44LPDE+rN6CLzA@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 0/7] KVM: arm64: Add support for FEAT_TLBIRANGE
To:     Sean Christopherson <seanjc@google.com>
Cc:     Oliver Upton <oliver.upton@linux.dev>,
        Marc Zyngier <maz@kernel.org>,
        James Morse <james.morse@arm.com>,
        Suzuki K Poulose <suzuki.poulose@arm.com>,
        Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>,
        Jing Zhang <jingzhangos@google.com>,
        Colton Lewis <coltonlewis@google.com>,
        linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, kvmarm@lists.linux.dev,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, kvm@vger.kernel.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Precedence: bulk

Allright, I'll resend the series along with David's patches.

Thank you.
Raghavendra

On Thu, Jun 15, 2023 at 7:14=E2=80=AFAM Sean Christopherson <seanjc@google.=
com> wrote:
>
> On Thu, Jun 15, 2023, Oliver Upton wrote:
> > +cc Sean
> >
> > On Wed, Jun 14, 2023 at 06:57:01PM -0700, Raghavendra Rao Ananta wrote:
> > > On Wed, Jun 14, 2023 at 5:19=E2=80=AFAM Oliver Upton <oliver.upton@li=
nux.dev> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Hi Raghavendra,
> > > >
> > > > On Tue, Jun 06, 2023 at 07:28:51PM +0000, Raghavendra Rao Ananta wr=
ote:
> > > > > The series is based off of upstream v6.4-rc2, and applied David
> > > > > Matlack's common API for TLB invalidations[1] on top.
> > > >
> > > > Sorry I didn't spot the dependency earlier, but this isn't helpful =
TBH.
> > > >
> > > > David's series was partially applied, and what remains no longer cl=
eanly
> > > > applies to the base you suggest. Independent of that, my *strong*
> > > > preference is that you just send out a series containing your patch=
es as
> > > > well as David's. Coordinating dependent efforts is the only sane th=
ing
> > > > to do. Also, those patches are 5 months old at this point which is
> > > > ancient history.
> > > >
> > > Would you rather prefer I detach this series from David's as I'm not
> > > sure what his plans are for future versions?
> > > On the other hand, the patches seem simple enough to rebase and give
> > > another shot at review, but may end up delaying this series.
> > > WDYT?
> >
> > In cases such as this you'd typically coordinate with the other
> > developer to pick up their changes as part of your series. Especially
> > for this case -- David's refactoring is _pointless_ without another
> > user for that code (i.e. arm64). As fun as it might be to antagonize
> > Sean, that series pokes x86 and I'd like an ack from on it.
> >
> > So, please post a combined series that applies cleanly to an early 6.4
> > rc of your choosing, and cc all affected reviewers/maintainers.
>
> +1