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;
Message-ID: <43731b35-c076-6d01-ad83-764fb2e9a8f0@huawei.com>
Date:   Wed, 26 Jul 2023 17:30:49 +0800
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:102.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/102.9.0
Subject: Re: [PATCH -next v8 0/2] support allocating crashkernel above 4G
 explicitly on riscv
Content-Language: en-US
To:     Conor Dooley <conor.dooley@microchip.com>
CC:     Conor Dooley <conor@kernel.org>, <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        <linux-riscv@lists.infradead.org>, <kexec@lists.infradead.org>,
        <linux-doc@vger.kernel.org>, <paul.walmsley@sifive.com>,
        <palmer@dabbelt.com>, <guoren@kernel.org>, <heiko@sntech.de>,
        <bjorn@rivosinc.com>, <alex@ghiti.fr>, <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
        <atishp@rivosinc.com>, <bhe@redhat.com>,
        <thunder.leizhen@huawei.com>, <horms@kernel.org>
References: <20230725214413.2488159-1-chenjiahao16@huawei.com>
 <20230725-judiciary-auction-ef50be622175@spud>
 <96245a6f-cff1-9f2a-1217-4109d9a19291@huawei.com>
 <20230726-affix-employed-319aada685e7@wendy>
From:   "chenjiahao (C)" <chenjiahao16@huawei.com>
In-Reply-To: <20230726-affix-employed-319aada685e7@wendy>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: bulk


On 2023/7/26 14:45, Conor Dooley wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 26, 2023 at 10:20:00AM +0800, chenjiahao (C) wrote:
>> On 2023/7/26 5:48, Conor Dooley wrote:
>>> Hey,
>>>
>>> Your $subject says -next, but the patch failed to apply to
>>> riscv/for-next. What was the base for this patchset?
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> Conor.
>> Hi,
>>
>> My patchset was tested on current linux-next HEAD
>> (commit ID: 1e25dd777248, tag: next-20230725) and
>> it seems all ok.
>> Could you try applying with the base above, or
>> is there any problem with that base?
> There's some difference between linux-next and riscv/for-next that
> prevents the patchwork automation from applying the patches.

Oh, I see. There is definitely a difference, since linux-next applied
a bugfix patch b690e266dae2 ("riscv: mm: fix truncation warning on RV32")
recently, whereas riscv/for-next didn't. I have worked on a wrong base
and thanks for reminding :)

I will rebase onto riscv/for-next and post my v9 pathset soon, please
check over there.

Thanks,
Jiahao