On Wed, May 11, 2016 at 11:30 PM, David Daney [off-list ref] wrote:

On 05/11/2016 02:22 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:

quoted

On Wed, May 11, 2016 at 11:08 PM, David Daney [off-list ref]
wrote:

quoted

On 05/11/2016 01:35 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:

quoted

On Wed, May 11, 2016 at 12:40 PM, Will Deacon [off-list ref]
wrote:

quoted

On Wed, May 11, 2016 at 02:43:11AM +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:

quoted

On Wed, Apr 27, 2016 at 8:07 PM, David Daney [off-list ref]
wrote:

quoted

From: David Daney <redacted>

Based on
git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/arm64/linux.git
for-next/core branch at commit 643d703d2d2d ("arm64: compat: Check
for
AArch32 state")

[...]

quoted

quoted

David Daney (2):
    arm64, numa: Cleanup NUMA disabled messages.
    acpi, numa, srat: Improve SRAT error detection and add messages.

Hanjun Guo (11):
    acpi, numa: Use pr_fmt() instead of printk
    acpi, numa: Replace ACPI_DEBUG_PRINT() with pr_debug()
    acpi, numa: remove duplicate NULL check
    acpi, numa: move acpi_numa_slit_init() to drivers/acpi/numa.c
    arm64, numa: rework numa_add_memblk()
    x86, acpi, numa: cleanup acpi_numa_processor_affinity_init()
    acpi, numa: move bad_srat() and srat_disabled() to
      drivers/acpi/numa.c
    acpi, numa: remove unneeded acpi_numa=1
    acpi, numa: Move acpi_numa_memory_affinity_init() to
      drivers/acpi/numa.c
    arm64, acpi, numa: NUMA support based on SRAT and SLIT
    acpi, numa: Enable ACPI based NUMA on ARM64

Robert Richter (1):
    acpi, numa: Move acpi_numa_arch_fixup() to ia64 only

I need ACKs from the ARM64 maintainers on patches [6-7/13] and
[13-14/14].

There's also a dependency on the arm64 for-next/core branch, so I've
been
largely ignoring this as far as 4.6 is concerned and was planning to
take
a proper look for 4.7 once the upcoming merge window is out of the way.

That would be 4.7 and 4.8 respectively I suppose?

Anyway, Catalin has ACKed all of them except for the [13/14], so
technically I can apply [1-12/14] now and then [13-14/14] can be
applied when they are ready.

Do you think there will be any problems with merging [6-7/14] into 4.7
via the ACPI tree?

I would defer to the arm64 maintainers for decisions about the arm64
specific parts of the patch set.  That said, many of the arm64 specific
patches depend on the arm64 for-next/core branch, so you would have to be
careful about merge ordering if you pull these in before the
for-next/core
branch is merged.

Fair enough.  I will wait for an update then.

quoted

Also FWIW, I plan on addressing Catalin's comments about 13/14 and
posting a
new version of the patch set in the next day or two.

OK, but in that case it won't be considered for 4.7 (at least not by
me), so I'd suggest sending it in the second half of the 4.7 merge
window (or about that time).

To be candid, I would very much like for you to pull in as many of the
patches as you are comfortable with as soon as possible.

I don't know where Will and Catalin stand on this, and their opinion is
obviously important, but getting 1-12/14 merged to v4.7 and deferring the
last two for v4.8 would simplify the whole process for me.  The drawback is
carrying dead code around until the final parts are merged.

That is not unheard of, however.

OK, I'll try to put the [1-12/14] into my linux-next branch early next
week and we'll see if that triggers any conflicts.