From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org Received: from lists.ozlabs.org (lists.ozlabs.org [112.213.38.117]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6F891C47422 for ; Thu, 25 Jan 2024 16:34:58 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: lists.ozlabs.org; dkim=fail reason="signature verification failed" (2048-bit key; unprotected) header.d=ibm.com header.i=@ibm.com header.a=rsa-sha256 header.s=pp1 header.b=kUFCHFm8; dkim-atps=neutral Received: from boromir.ozlabs.org (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by lists.ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4TLRJ03PW2z3cRs for ; Fri, 26 Jan 2024 03:34:56 +1100 (AEDT) Authentication-Results: lists.ozlabs.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key; unprotected) header.d=ibm.com header.i=@ibm.com header.a=rsa-sha256 header.s=pp1 header.b=kUFCHFm8; dkim-atps=neutral Authentication-Results: lists.ozlabs.org; spf=pass (sender SPF authorized) smtp.mailfrom=linux.ibm.com (client-ip=148.163.158.5; helo=mx0b-001b2d01.pphosted.com; envelope-from=nathanl@linux.ibm.com; receiver=lists.ozlabs.org) Received: from mx0b-001b2d01.pphosted.com (mx0b-001b2d01.pphosted.com [148.163.158.5]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by lists.ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4TLRH43zjyz30f5 for ; Fri, 26 Jan 2024 03:34:08 +1100 (AEDT) Received: from pps.filterd (m0353723.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com (8.17.1.19/8.17.1.19) with ESMTP id 40PFTKLt030846; Thu, 25 Jan 2024 16:33:57 GMT DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=ibm.com; h=from : to : cc : subject : in-reply-to : references : date : message-id : content-type : content-transfer-encoding : mime-version; s=pp1; bh=6xevhj8TTNZN6HF9kecCCNfWP9wY+TsTV0s9azUqCJo=; b=kUFCHFm81wTUbwUVVAFl/cCu1I9PHAklVjK8nQX03C6mzGG+RYPq+6w7dPUSwv8n2o9u FoXZNUL8zDExRdK8jk+S2rKfyKfn4jGdK/KoTyrC/st7Ki05746u67ImsJ6OUejF/dA0 R+Ne/sl/2KC/CqyaiOR8lqrfeEJ2minhF9e9H9VOcZ+gf9RjAB0kIVsB+fAerVuFrJev ufC0G1YoghE/zCnkWj8vdQzgEoHJIP7xZ3NyqzZ67E83kUfjubt5BVEavte4w2Rd3J8g 0NgbrfY5FH7dxsAK0SYwA4SJZ/E73W0U+ELi+rGhwbaJjh4/QTUojMNKqEeLFm9mcI45 mQ== Received: from pps.reinject (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com (PPS) with ESMTPS id 3vusqnuhnf-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Thu, 25 Jan 2024 16:33:56 +0000 Received: from m0353723.ppops.net (m0353723.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by pps.reinject (8.17.1.5/8.17.1.5) with ESMTP id 40PGTkNC004033; Thu, 25 Jan 2024 16:33:56 GMT Received: from ppma23.wdc07v.mail.ibm.com (5d.69.3da9.ip4.static.sl-reverse.com [169.61.105.93]) by mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com (PPS) with ESMTPS id 3vusqnuhn5-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Thu, 25 Jan 2024 16:33:56 +0000 Received: from pps.filterd (ppma23.wdc07v.mail.ibm.com [127.0.0.1]) by ppma23.wdc07v.mail.ibm.com (8.17.1.19/8.17.1.19) with ESMTP id 40PGM5JT022438; Thu, 25 Jan 2024 16:33:55 GMT Received: from smtprelay03.dal12v.mail.ibm.com ([172.16.1.5]) by ppma23.wdc07v.mail.ibm.com (PPS) with ESMTPS id 3vrt0md8d7-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Thu, 25 Jan 2024 16:33:55 +0000 Received: from smtpav01.dal12v.mail.ibm.com (smtpav01.dal12v.mail.ibm.com [10.241.53.100]) by smtprelay03.dal12v.mail.ibm.com (8.14.9/8.14.9/NCO v10.0) with ESMTP id 40PGXsV018219554 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=OK); Thu, 25 Jan 2024 16:33:54 GMT Received: from smtpav01.dal12v.mail.ibm.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by IMSVA (Postfix) with ESMTP id 862A958061; Thu, 25 Jan 2024 16:33:54 +0000 (GMT) Received: from smtpav01.dal12v.mail.ibm.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by IMSVA (Postfix) with ESMTP id 726BE58059; Thu, 25 Jan 2024 16:33:54 +0000 (GMT) Received: from localhost (unknown [9.41.178.242]) by smtpav01.dal12v.mail.ibm.com (Postfix) with ESMTP; Thu, 25 Jan 2024 16:33:54 +0000 (GMT) From: Nathan Lynch To: Christophe Leroy Subject: Re: [PATCH 8/8] powerpc/rtas: consume retry statuses in sys_rtas() In-Reply-To: <33ca48b8-f847-4d2b-b95f-741f0e082d2d@csgroup.eu> References: <20230220-rtas-queue-for-6-4-v1-0-010e4416f13f@linux.ibm.com> <20230220-rtas-queue-for-6-4-v1-8-010e4416f13f@linux.ibm.com> <33ca48b8-f847-4d2b-b95f-741f0e082d2d@csgroup.eu> Date: Thu, 25 Jan 2024 10:33:54 -0600 Message-ID: <87wmrxqsnh.fsf@li-e15d104c-2135-11b2-a85c-d7ef17e56be6.ibm.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 X-TM-AS-GCONF: 00 X-Proofpoint-ORIG-GUID: ROAzZ8AbRTXI-D0FRSyXHbhEtXv6FwaP X-Proofpoint-GUID: -DInlfgoQzLSeTqQMuDgBs6XBZ7hutFq Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Proofpoint-UnRewURL: 0 URL was un-rewritten MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=baseguard engine=ICAP:2.0.272,Aquarius:18.0.1011,Hydra:6.0.619,FMLib:17.11.176.26 definitions=2024-01-25_10,2024-01-25_01,2023-05-22_02 X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=outbound_notspam policy=outbound score=0 malwarescore=0 adultscore=0 mlxlogscore=780 lowpriorityscore=0 priorityscore=1501 impostorscore=0 suspectscore=0 clxscore=1011 mlxscore=0 bulkscore=0 phishscore=0 spamscore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=8.12.0-2311290000 definitions=main-2401250117 X-BeenThere: linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Linux on PowerPC Developers Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Cc: Tyrel Datwyler , Nick Child , Andrew Donnellan , Scott Cheloha , Nicholas Piggin , Laurent Dufour , "linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org" Errors-To: linuxppc-dev-bounces+linuxppc-dev=archiver.kernel.org@lists.ozlabs.org Sender: "Linuxppc-dev" Christophe Leroy writes: > Hi Nathan, > > Le 06/03/2023 =C3=A0 22:33, Nathan Lynch via B4 Relay a =C3=A9crit=C2=A0: >> From: Nathan Lynch >>=20 >> The kernel can handle retrying RTAS function calls in response to >> -2/990x in the sys_rtas() handler instead of relaying the intermediate >> status to user space. > > From this series with still have patches 5, 7 and 8 awaiting in=20 > patchwork, see=20 > https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/project/linuxppc-dev/list/?submitter=3D85747= =20 > and patch 8 doesn't apply anymore. > > Are those 3 patches still relevant or should they be discarded ? Thanks for checking - 5 and 7 can be discarded. I intend to return to 8/8 ("consume retry statuses...") when time allows. So that could be put in "changes requested" state I suppose, but if it's easier on the maintainer side to discard it that's fine with me too.