On Thu, Jul 24, 2014 at 05:55:36AM +0100, Z Lim wrote: > On Wed, Jul 23, 2014 at 3:32 AM, Catalin Marinas > <catalin.mari...@arm.com> wrote: > > On Mon, Jul 21, 2014 at 04:49:29PM +0100, Alexei Starovoitov wrote: > >> On Mon, Jul 21, 2014 at 2:16 AM, Will Deacon <will.dea...@arm.com> wrote: > >> > On Fri, Jul 18, 2014 at 07:28:06PM +0100, Zi Shen Lim wrote: > [...] > >> >> This series applies against net-next and is tested working > >> >> with lib/test_bpf on ARMv8 Foundation Model. > >> > > >> > Looks like it works on my Juno board too, so: > >> > > >> > Acked-by: Will Deacon <will.dea...@arm.com> > >> > > >> > for the series. > >> > > >> > It's a bit late for 3.17 now, so I guess we'll queue this for 3.18 (which > >> > also means the dependency on -next isn't an issue). Perhaps you could > >> > repost > >> > around -rc3? > >> > >> Thanks for testing! Nice to see it working on real hw. > >> I'm not sure why you're proposing a 4+ week delay. The patches > >> will rot instead of getting used and tested. Imo it makes sense to > >> get them into net-next now for 3.17. > >> JIT is disabled by sysctl by default anyway. > > > > We normally like some patches (especially new functionality) to sit in > > linux-next for a while before the mering window (ideally starting with > > -rc4 or -rc5). We are at -rc6 already, so getting close to the 3.17 > > merging window. > > > > Another aspect is that the arm64/bpf branch depends on the net tree, so > > it can't easily go in via the arm64 tree for 3.17 (3.18 would not be a > > problem). > > Hi Catalin, I take it you prefer this series going through arm64 tree, > targeting 3.18, is that right?
Right. > I understand your preference to have it sitting in linux-next for a > longer period for arm64 material, I'll repost this again after 3.17 so > it gets more exposure in linux-next. Brill, thanks! > BTW, are you open to this series going through net tree? I'm > (preemptively) asking because during development of this series, I've > had to rebase a couple times against net-next to handle dependencies. > Or is the general practice to handle conflicts in linux-next itself? We don't have a problem with it going via the -net tree if there's a reason for doing so (i.e. a new dependency that crops up after your rebase) but we should stick with the arm64 tree if we can. Cheers, Will -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
