ACK: [RESEND][PATCH 0/3][SRU Artful] Workaround Falkor erratum 1041

dann frazier dann.frazier at canonical.com
Wed Jan 24 23:17:34 UTC 2018


On Wed, Jan 24, 2018 at 5:12 AM, Kleber Souza
<kleber.souza at canonical.com> wrote:
> On 01/04/18 18:43, dann frazier wrote:
>> BugLink: https://bugs.launchpad.net/1738497
>>
>> All clean cherry-picks from upstream, other than a trivial Kconfig offset
>> adjustment.
>>
>> Shanker Donthineni (2):
>>   arm64: Define cputype macros for Falkor CPU
>>   arm64: Add software workaround for Falkor erratum 1041
>>
>> dann frazier (1):
>>   UBUNTU: [Config] CONFIG_QCOM_FALKOR_ERRATUM_E1041=y
>>
>>  Documentation/arm64/silicon-errata.txt    |  1 +
>>  arch/arm64/Kconfig                        | 10 ++++++++++
>>  arch/arm64/include/asm/assembler.h        | 10 ++++++++++
>>  arch/arm64/include/asm/cputype.h          |  2 ++
>>  arch/arm64/kernel/cpu-reset.S             |  1 +
>>  arch/arm64/kernel/efi-entry.S             |  2 ++
>>  arch/arm64/kernel/head.S                  |  1 +
>>  arch/arm64/kernel/relocate_kernel.S       |  1 +
>>  arch/arm64/kvm/hyp-init.S                 |  1 +
>>  debian.master/config/annotations          |  2 ++
>>  debian.master/config/config.common.ubuntu |  1 +
>>  11 files changed, 32 insertions(+)
>>
>
> The resent patches were referencing the old cover letter and not this
> one, so I'm acking the following patches:
>
> [RESEND][PATCH 1/3][SRU Artful] arm64: Define cputype macros for Falkor CPU
> [RESEND][PATCH 2/3][SRU Artful] UBUNTU: [Config]
> CONFIG_QCOM_FALKOR_ERRATUM_E1041=y
> [RESEND][PATCH 3/3][SRU Artful] arm64: Add software workaround for
> Falkor erratum 1041
>
> Acked-by: Kleber Sacilotto de Souza <kleber.souza at canonical.com>
>
>
> Shouldn't patch 2/3 be applied after 3/3 since this is where the config
> option is added?

It's done in that order intentionally for bisection purposes.

> Please don't resend the same patches because they didn't get enough
> attention, a reply to the original thread to remind us about it is
> enough.

Normally I would have, but in this case we were asked on IRC to resend
everything from before/during the break.

> Most of the times that a patch didn't get any reply for some
> weeks it's because we are in the middle of the previous cycle, or
> firefighting CVE's as we are currently. So when we start a new cycle we
> make our best not to forget any submission that hasn't been applied yet.
> And if you do need to resend some patches, please self NACK the old ones
> to help us identify later which patches are the ones that need care.

OK - will do. Thanks Kleber!

  -dann




More information about the kernel-team mailing list