Re: How are we doing with our blockers for 2.18?

[Ryan S Arnold <rsa at linux dot vnet dot ibm dot com>]

On Mon, 2013-06-17 at 14:22 -0400, Carlos O'Donell wrote:
> On 06/14/2013 05:39 PM, Ryan S. Arnold wrote:
> > On Fri, Jun 14, 2013 at 3:01 PM, Carlos O'Donell <carlos@redhat.com> wrote:
> >> Community,
> >>
> >> How are we doing with our 2.18 blockers?
> > 
> > The Power8 patches depends on AT_HWCAP2 as is, but I suppose I could
> > separate the platform enablement from the power8 hwcap bits.  That
> > would still get the power8 arch stuff in place by Monday.  in the
> > meantime I'll look at the implications of AT_HWCAP w/rt the
> > pseudo-hwcap bits.
> 
> Monday is an arbitrary day for the freeze.
> 
> What really matters is that we as a community talk about what
> features we want in 2.18, abide by that, and then work to review
> and close out those issues as immediately as possible.
> 
> What is required to get the Power8 and AT_HWCAP2 patches into
> master right now?

I need to remove the TLS artifacts from the dl_hwcap.

I need to figure out what to do with the platform bits which may be
saved in the high bits of the hwcap since these will now collide with
the AT_HWCAP2 usage in PowerPC (since they marked the bits from high to
low).

Roland wants a clear policy on how AT_HwCAP2 will be used by the kernel
in the future, which means negotiating this with the kernel.

Also, based on what's negotiated I need to perform sanity enforcement.

> 
> If you can split the patches and that makes review easier then
> please do so immediately

So with that in mind I don't see how AT_HwCAP2 can make 2.18 unless
someone has an immediate solution to these problems identified.

Ryan