Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-crypto-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20200326080104.27286-1-masahiroy@kernel.org> <20200326080104.27286-16-masahiroy@kernel.org>
 <CAKwvOdnG4F6+Ndfj+=BoV6OidJjWS_dYtjvyCEJ6nyxkSQc3rg@mail.gmail.com> <CAHmME9p_N2cpMt20Gf1kWTRnj36nwrceFxEui2MU0kFu3WOdww@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAHmME9p_N2cpMt20Gf1kWTRnj36nwrceFxEui2MU0kFu3WOdww@mail.gmail.com>
From:   Nick Desaulniers <ndesaulniers@google.com>
Date:   Thu, 26 Mar 2020 12:58:06 -0700
Message-ID: <CAKwvOdmLWqVq_EQk2S4FUSUCU7yoppYD4oiL+P7taWoDTyrb9w@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 15/16] x86: update AS_* macros to binutils >=2.23,
 supporting ADX and AVX2
To:     "Jason A. Donenfeld" <Jason@zx2c4.com>
Cc:     Masahiro Yamada <masahiroy@kernel.org>,
        Linux Kbuild mailing list <linux-kbuild@vger.kernel.org>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
        Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
        "H . Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>,
        "maintainer:X86 ARCHITECTURE (32-BIT AND 64-BIT)" <x86@kernel.org>,
        clang-built-linux <clang-built-linux@googlegroups.com>,
        "David S. Miller" <davem@davemloft.net>,
        Herbert Xu <herbert@gondor.apana.org.au>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>,
        "open list:HARDWARE RANDOM NUMBER GENERATOR CORE" 
        <linux-crypto@vger.kernel.org>, LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Sender: linux-crypto-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Thu, Mar 26, 2020 at 12:48 PM Jason A. Donenfeld <Jason@zx2c4.com> wrote:
>
> On Thu, Mar 26, 2020 at 11:55 AM Nick Desaulniers
> <ndesaulniers@google.com> wrote:
> > I see four checks for CONFIG_AS_AVX2 in:
> > net/netfilter/nft_set_pipapo.c
> > net/netfilter/nf_tables_api.c
> > net/netfilter/Makefile
> > net/netfilter/nft_set_pipapo_avx2.h
>
> That code isn't in Linus' tree right now is it? Does it make sense for

Indeed, it seems I was grepping in my checkout of -next.

> us to see which subsystem trees (crypto, netfilter, raid, etc) are
> submitted to 5.7? Or would you rather this patchset be rebased now on
> next?

I think rebasing on -next is the way to go.  I usually generate my
patches off of that, though some trees that don't feed into -next are
technically further ahead.

-- 
Thanks,
~Nick Desaulniers