On Fri, Dec 18, 2020 at 09:56:02AM +0530, Viresh Kumar wrote: > On 17-12-20, 10:55, Catalin Marinas wrote: > > Hi Viresh, > > > > On Thu, Dec 17, 2020 at 01:27:32PM +0530, Viresh Kumar wrote: > > > On 15-12-20, 11:04, Viresh Kumar wrote: > > > > Every time I have stumbled upon this routine, I get confused with the > > > > way 'have_policy' is used and I have to dig in to understand why is it > > > > so. Here is an attempt to make it easier to understand, and hopefully it > > > > is an improvement. > > > > > > > > The 'have_policy' check was just an optimization to avoid writing > > > > to amu_fie_cpus in case we don't have to, but that optimization itself > > > > is creating more confusion than the real work. Lets just do that if all > > > > the CPUs support AMUs. It is much cleaner that way. > > > > > > > > Reviewed-by: Ionela Voinescu <ionela.voine...@arm.com> > > > > Signed-off-by: Viresh Kumar <viresh.ku...@linaro.org> > > > > --- > > > > V3: > > > > - Added Reviewed by tag. > > > > > > Catalin, please pick the first two patches for 5.11. I will send the > > > last one separately later on. > > > > I haven't figured out whether these are fixes (a cover letter would > > help ;)). They look like generic improvements to me > > Right they are and since the merge window just opened I thought these > don't really need to wait for another full cycle to get in.
Normally we freeze the arm64 tree around the -rc6 prior to the merging window to give the patches a bit of time in linux-next. This time around, given the holidays, Linus even stated that if not already in -next at 5.10, it won't be pulled: https://lkml.org/lkml/2020/12/13/290. So please re-post at -rc1 with the acks in place. -- Catalin