[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH V2] booke_206_tlbwe: Discard invalid bits in MAS
Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH V2] booke_206_tlbwe: Discard invalid bits in MAS2
Wed, 30 May 2012 13:54:59 +0200
Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:12.0) Gecko/20120421 Thunderbird/12.0
Am 30.05.2012 13:29, schrieb Alexander Graf:
> On 30.05.2012, at 13:22, Andreas Färber wrote:
>> Am 30.05.2012 10:13, schrieb Alexander Graf:
>>> On 21.05.2012, at 18:11, Fabien Chouteau wrote:
>>>> The size of EPN field in MAS2 depends on page size. This patch adds a
>>>> mask to discard invalid bits in EPN field.
>>>> Definition of EPN field from e500v2 RM:
>>>> EPN Effective page number: Depending on page size, only the bits
>>>> associated with a page boundary are valid. Bits that represent offsets
>>>> within a page are ignored and should be cleared.
>>>> There is a similar (but more complicated) definition in PowerISA V2.06.
>>>> Signed-off-by: Fabien Chouteau <address@hidden>
>>> No reply from Blue, so I applied this patch to ppc-next :). Thanks a lot!
>> I did reply though, so I'm not okay. Please rebase on top of the patches
>> that I have supplied you with. Rebasing that set is no fun.
> Of course it's no fun, but it's neither crucial nor are you Blue. I'm wary
> enough with a big change like this, but your mail didn't sound like you were
> 100% confident that you took everything into account :(.
> I'd really prefer to have Blue just resend a set that converts the target and
> be done with it. Unless you're 100% sure that you did everything correctly.
> Then please resend the whole patch set with your own SOB lines and declare
> your own ownership (or blameship rather) ;).
It is obvious that you haven't even looked at it or you would've seen my
I am confident that I did the rebasing of your series right, and I
pointed out that your series was better than Blue's latest before it
I am not confident that Blue's original conversion was fully correct,
but since it worked and had your SoB I didn't have to worry. ;)
Also a reminder that the mpc8544ds patch that you have now pushed to
ppc-next is affected by qom-next. Which is my main issue: I don't want
to see conflicting PULLs for qom-next and ppc-next intermixed with Blue
pushing his own series. If you and Blue coordinate who of you takes care
of rebasing your respective series, I don't mind at all whose SoB the
P.S. Don't understand what is not supposed to be crucial here? I do see
a working qemu.git master branch and progress with merging QOM into
qemu.git as crucial. Whereas pulling logging workarounds into ppc-next
is not crucial at all and could be done by Anthony/Blue just as well.
SUSE LINUX Products GmbH, Maxfeldstr. 5, 90409 Nürnberg, Germany
GF: Jeff Hawn, Jennifer Guild, Felix Imendörffer; HRB 16746 AG Nürnberg