[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 14:16:17 +0200
On 30.05.2012, at 13:54, Andreas Färber wrote:
> 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
> SoB. :(
> 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. ;)
Heh :). Yeah, my main concern was the resend to the ML. And yes, I never look
at git trees. A patch set is either a mail or doesn't exist to me :). So just
resend it, I'll read through it, and then I'll merge things in my tree.
> 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
> series carries.
That'd be easy if he replied to emails ...
> P.S. Don't understand what is not supposed to be crucial here?
That one's easily explained. If the patch set isn't applied, the world doesn't
fall apart :).
> 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.
I don't see your point. Did anyone pick up the patch before me? I left it lying
there, nobody took up on it. It was originally a PPC targeted patch, so I
pulled it into my queue. If someone else takes it in, more fine with me. I just
don't want it to get lost.