On Wed, Jul 12, 2017 at 7:55 PM, Will Deacon <will.dea...@arm.com> wrote: > On Wed, Jul 12, 2017 at 09:58:01AM +0200, Arnd Bergmann wrote: >> On Wed, Jul 12, 2017 at 3:31 AM, Palmer Dabbelt <pal...@dabbelt.com> wrote: >> Without having looked at the current state of the patch series, I would >> guess that next week is a good time to ask for inclusion *in* linux-next, >> while continuing the review. > > My only concern about getting this into -next is that is sets expectations > that this is going to land in the next merge window, but we're unable to > review much of the atomics, barriers and locking code because the > architecture document is being rewritten and is not yet available: > > https://marc.info/?i=8709419e3d964b86b025bb35a6b55440%40HQMAIL105.nvidia.com
I don't see that as a show-stopper for the merge: yes, the kernel port will need to conform to the architecture once we know what it is, but overall, this seems like a detail that can easily be fixed after the merge as no ABI is involved. The worst case here is that the initial release is a bit unstable, slow or both and this will get fixed later. I would expect this to be the case even if the atomics are all correct ;-) Arnd