From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: ard.biesheuvel@linaro.org (Ard Biesheuvel) Date: Mon, 5 Feb 2018 20:21:48 +0100 Subject: [PATCH v2 0/9] Fix kpti-enabled kernels for Cavium ThunderX In-Reply-To: <20180205164153.GF10172@arm.com> References: <1517227200-20412-1-git-send-email-will.deacon@arm.com> <20180205164153.GF10172@arm.com> Message-ID: To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org On 5 February 2018 at 17:41, Will Deacon wrote: > Hi Ard, > > On Sat, Feb 03, 2018 at 11:36:04AM +0000, Ard Biesheuvel wrote: >> On 29 January 2018 at 11:59, Will Deacon wrote: >> > Hi all, >> > >> > This is version two of the patches I posted on Friday: >> > >> > http://lists.infradead.org/pipermail/linux-arm-kernel/2018-January/556304.html >> > >> > Changes since v1 include: >> > >> > * Use SCTLR_ELx_M instead of open-coded #1 >> > * Changed section attributes for .idmap.text to reflect actual mappings >> > * Rejigged phys_to_pte for consistency with pte_to_phys >> > * Added reviewer tags >> > >> >> Any chance we could base this on the arm64/kpti branch rather than >> for-next/core? Any backports of kpti will need to include this series >> as well, or we break ThunderX, and I'd rather have you merge it into >> for-next/core rather than the various backporters (whose level of >> familiarity with this code is invariably lower than yours) into the >> stable trees. > > I'd prefer to have this based on for-next/core for ease of merging, but I'll > do a version for the kpti branch too (probably at -rc1). Once mainline has > settled down, I plan to rebuild kpti with references to upstream commits > etc. > I am already doing that for v4.14. Perhaps it is simplest to merge that branch into v4.15 as well (unless you need to rebuild the branch for other reasons as well)