Re: [PATCH v2 14/28] arm64/sve: Backend logic for setting the vector length

Dave Martin
2017-10-05T17:04:54Z

On Thu, Oct 05, 2017 at 05:53:34PM +0100, Catalin Marinas wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 05, 2017 at 05:42:29PM +0100, Dave P Martin wrote:
> > On Wed, Sep 13, 2017 at 03:11:23PM -0700, Catalin Marinas wrote:
> > > On Wed, Sep 13, 2017 at 08:06:12PM +0100, Dave P Martin wrote:
> > > > On Wed, Sep 13, 2017 at 10:29:11AM -0700, Catalin Marinas wrote:

[...]

> > > > > Can this be merged with patch 20? It seems to add the PR_ definitions
> > > > > which get actually used later when the prctl interface is added.
> > > >
> > > > This patch is used both by patch 19 and by patch 20, which I preferred
> > > > not to merge with each other: ptrace and prctl are significantly
> > > > different things.
> > > >
> > > > The prctl bit definitions are added here because they are the canonical
> > > > definitions used by both interfaces. The ptrace #defines are based on
> > > > them.
> > > >
> > > > Does it make sense if I merge patch 20 into this one and apply patch 19
> > > > on top? This avoide the appearance of prctl #defines with no prctl
> > > > implementation.
> > >
> > > That's fine, you can bring patch 20 forward. If there are other
> > > non-trivial issues, feel free to ignore my comment.
> >
> > I've had a go at this, but I think it's going to be more trouble than
> > it's worth -- there are other interdependencies between the patches
> > which make them tricky to reorder.
> >
> > I could add a note in the commit message for this patch explaining why
> > the prctl flag #defines are being added here. What do you think?
>
> As I said, it's up to you. A line in the commit message would do.

OK, I think I'll stick with this then.

Cheers
---Dave