Patch: Fix lpae on exynos5

[Josh Boyer]

On Tue, Nov 5, 2013 at 11:20 AM, Peter Robinson <pbrobinson at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 29, 2013 at 1:28 PM, Josh Boyer <jwboyer at fedoraproject.org> wrote:
>> On Tue, Oct 29, 2013 at 8:48 AM, John Dulaney
>> <jdulaney at fedoraproject.org> wrote:
>>>> Date: Wed, 23 Oct 2013 15:53:18 +0100
>>>> Subject: Re: Patch: Fix lpae on exynos5
>>>> From: pbrobinson at gmail.com
>>>> To: jdulaney at fedoraproject.org
>>>> CC: kernel at lists.fedoraproject.org
>>>>
>>>> John,
>>>>
>>>> Is there any upstream references to this? Has this been tested against
>>>> the Fedora LPAE kernel config and are there any changes needed for
>>>> that, oh and which version of the Fedora kernel?
>>>>
>>>> Peter
>>>
>>> Peter,
>>> The source for this patch:
>>> https://github.com/virtualopensystems/linux-kvm-arm/commit/32682304c9935dd0aa55ee9196429d0955f26fa1
>>>
>>> I have tested it against the 3.11 and 3.12 kernels;  the file it patches is also specific to exynos5.
>>
>> Thanks for the follow up.  A few comments/questions.
>>
>> 1) If you send a patch, it needs to be properly attributed if you did
>> not author it.  That includes carrying forward the From: for
>> authorship and the Signed-off-by lines.
>>
>> 2) The tree you pointed to appears to be some random github tree.
>> That is not upstream.  Upstream is the main torvalds tree, or allowing
>> for ARM, the ARM maintainers tree and the ARM SoC trees.  Now, it may
>> well be that this github tree is widely used and feeds into one of the
>> trees I mentioned, however it is really no different than pointing to
>> a random patch somewhere until those commits show up in one of those
>> trees.  (Github commits don't show commentary on the patch either.)
>>
>> 3) The specific patch you provide was authored 6 months ago, and
>> committed to github 3 months ago.  I went and looked in linux-next,
>> and it isn't there.  I looked in the various branches of the arm-soc
>> tree and it also isn't there.  Given the patch is half a year old now
>> and it still isn't even pending in the upstream tree, we'd wind up
>> carrying this as a patch basically forever.  I'm not keen on doing
>> that.
>
> The only thing I can add to this is that we've dropped the exynos
> multi platform patch from 3.12 as it didn't apply cleanly and upstream
> had said it would land in 3.12 which it did not. At this point in time
> there is no support for exynos HW in the rawhide kernel and hence it's
> not on a supported list of platforms and looking at the upstream
> arm-soc branch it looks unlikely to be so until at least 3.14 so I
> don't see much point in this patch landing.

OK, thanks.

josh