[Zesty][PATCH v2 00/13] POWER9 XIVE: msgsnd/doorbell IPI support(backport)

[Gustavo L F Walbon]

On 05/24/2017 09:54 AM, Seth Forshee wrote:
> On Tue, May 23, 2017 at 10:27:35AM -0300, Gustavo Walbon wrote:
>> Buglink : http://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1691973
>>
>> The backport was requested for 16.04.3 HWE to be enabled the XIVE
>> feature on the POWER9 systems.
>>
>> The tests were done using the Sysbench for CPU,fileIO and Threads tests,
>> and the FIO tester to write directly on disk without buffering. All
>>   tests were performed in order to stress the machine using its 32
>> threads of CPUs for 12 hr.
>>
>> The commits below were cherry-pick to enable XIVE features.
>>
>> The fixing from Michael Ellerman which it solved the kernel
>> crash while the starting boot of the machine.
>>
>> Benjamin Herrenschmidt (5):
>>    powerpc/xive: Native exploitation of the XIVE interrupt controller
>>    powerpc/powernv: Add XIVE related definitions to opal-api.h
>>    powerpc: Add more PPC bit conversion macros
>>    powerpc: Add optional smp_ops->prepare_cpu SMP callback
>>    powerpc/smp: Remove migrate_irq() custom implementation
>>
>> Douglas Miller (1):
>>    powerpc/xmon: Dump memory in CPU endian format
>>
>> Michael Ellerman (1):
>>    powerpc/powernv: Fix oops on P9 DD1 in cause_ipi()
>>
>> Nicholas Piggin (6):
>>    powerpc/64s: Add msgp facility unavailable log string
>>    powerpc/64s: Add SCV FSCR bit for ISA v3.0
>>    powerpc: Change the doorbell IPI calling convention
>>    powerpc: Introduce msgsnd/doorbell barrier primitives
>>    powerpc/64s: Avoid a branch for ppc_msgsnd
>>    powerpc/powernv: POWER9 support for msgsnd/doorbell IPI
> I've cherry picked most of these to artful/master-next (except for one
> or two that were already in 4.11), but in the process I noticed a few
> problems with this submission.
Do you suggest another version of patch or is it unnecessary?
>
> First, the patches say "cherry picked from ... linux-next", but all the
> patches are actually in Linus' tree as of 4.12-rc1, so the "linux-next"
> is unnecessary.
>
> Second, the bug link line needs to start with the exact string
> "BugLink:", otherwise our tooling for generating the changelog entries
> won't recognize it.
OK, I have made a mistake, sorry.
>
> Finally, I found that some of these patches must have been backports and
> not clean cherry picks. Whenever you manually resolve conflicts you
> should change the "cherry picked from ..." line to say "backported from
> ..." instead.
In my case there was not necessary a manual fix, all of them was cherry 
pick.

>
> Thanks,
> Seth
>