Hi Catalin

-----Original Message-----
From: Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>
Sent: 2019年9月25日 22:38
To: Justin He (Arm Technology China) <redacted>
Cc: Will Deacon <will@kernel.org>; Mark Rutland
[off-list ref]; James Morse [off-list ref]; Marc
Zyngier [off-list ref]; Matthew Wilcox [off-list ref]; Kirill A.
Shutemov [off-list ref]; linux-arm-
kernel@lists.infradead.org; linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org; linux-
mm@kvack.org; Suzuki Poulose [off-list ref]; Punit
Agrawal [off-list ref]; Anshuman Khandual
[off-list ref]; Alex Van Brunt
[off-list ref]; Robin Murphy [off-list ref];
Thomas Gleixner [off-list ref]; Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-
foundation.org>; Jérôme Glisse [off-list ref]; Ralph Campbell
[off-list ref]; hejianet@gmail.com; Kaly Xin (Arm Technology
China) [off-list ref]; nd [off-list ref]
Subject: Re: [PATCH v9 1/3] arm64: cpufeature: introduce helper
cpu_has_hw_af()

On Wed, Sep 25, 2019 at 10:59:20AM +0800, Jia He wrote:

quoted

We unconditionally set the HW_AFDBM capability and only enable it on
CPUs which really have the feature. But sometimes we need to know
whether this cpu has the capability of HW AF. So decouple AF from
DBM by new helper cpu_has_hw_af().

Signed-off-by: Jia He <redacted>
Suggested-by: Suzuki Poulose <Suzuki.Poulose@arm.com>
Reported-by: kbuild test robot <redacted>

Which bug did the kbuild robot actually report? I'd drop this line.

This line is added due to [1]:
"If you fix the issue, kindly add following tag
Reported-by: kbuild test robot <redacted>"

Yes, I know your concern, it is a little bit confusing. But I don't know
how to distinguish the case btw a) original bug report b) bug report
of my patch implementation? Thanks for any suggestion.

[1] https://www.lkml.org/lkml/2019/9/18/940


--
Cheers,
Justin (Jia He)


_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel