From: Tianyang Zhang <zhangtianyang@loongson.cn>
To: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
chenhuacai@kernel.org, kernel@xen0n.name,
jiaxun.yang@flygoat.com, gaoliang@loongson.cn,
wangliupu@loongson.cn, lvjianmin@loongson.cn, yijun@loongson.cn,
mhocko@suse.com, akpm@linux-foundation.org,
dianders@chromium.org, maobibo@loongson.cn, xry111@xry111.site,
zhaotianrui@loongson.cn, nathan@kernel.org,
yangtiezhu@loongson.cn, zhoubinbin@loongson.cn
Cc: loongarch@lists.linux.dev, linux-doc@vger.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] Loongarch:Support loongarch avec
Date: Tue, 14 May 2024 10:39:52 +0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <27cd7657-e30b-845e-33f3-3cf55aa8540f@loongson.cn> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <87a5l0prkc.ffs@tglx>
Hi ,Thomas
Thank you for your patient reply,I will make unified corrections to some
format and
specification issues in subsequent patches.
在 2024/5/8 下午5:43, Thomas Gleixner 写道:
> On Tue, May 07 2024 at 20:59, Tianyang Zhang wrote:
>> From: zhangtianyang <zhangtianyang@loongson.cn>
> Please use your real name for the From line.
>
>> +
>> +#include <linux/init.h>
>> +#include <linux/interrupt.h>
>> +#include <linux/kernel.h>
>> +#include <linux/irq.h>
>> +#include <linux/irqchip.h>
>> +#include <linux/irqdomain.h>
>> +#include <linux/spinlock.h>
>> +#include <linux/msi.h>
>> +#include <linux/irqchip/chained_irq.h>
>> +#include <linux/cpuhotplug.h>
>> +#include <linux/radix-tree.h>
> Please put the includes in alphabethical order.
>
>> +#include <asm/loongarch.h>
>> +#include <asm/setup.h>
>> +
>> +static phys_addr_t msi_base_v2;
>> +
>> +typedef struct irq_data *irq_map_t[NR_VECTORS];
> No new pointless typedefs please.
>
> struct irq_map {
> struct irq_data irqd[NR_VECTORS];
> };
>
>> +DECLARE_PER_CPU(irq_map_t, irq_map);
> What's this declaration for?
>
>> +DEFINE_PER_CPU(irq_map_t, irq_map) = {
> Why is this global and not static?
>
>> + [0 ... NR_VECTORS - 1] = NULL,
> No need to initialize to NULL. It's zeroed by default.
>
>> +};
>> +
>> +struct pending_list {
>> + struct list_head head;
>> + raw_spinlock_t lock;
>> +};
> https://www.kernel.org/doc/html/latest/process/maintainer-tip.html#struct-declarations-and-initializers
>
>> +DEFINE_PER_CPU(struct pending_list, pending_list);
> Why is this global?
>
>> +struct loongarch_avec_chip {
>> + struct fwnode_handle *fwnode;
>> + struct irq_domain *domain;
>> + struct irq_matrix *vector_matrix;
>> + raw_spinlock_t lock;
>> +} loongarch_avec;
>> +
>> +struct loongarch_avec_data {
>> + struct list_head entry;
>> + unsigned int cpu;
>> + unsigned int vec;
>> + unsigned int prev_cpu;
>> + unsigned int prev_vec;
>> +};
> See link above.
>
>> +static int assign_irq_vector(struct irq_data *irqd, const struct cpumask *dest,
>> + unsigned int *cpu, int *vector)
> Please read the line break section in the tip docomentation
>
>> +{
>> + int ret;
>> +
>> + ret = irq_matrix_alloc(loongarch_avec.vector_matrix, dest, false, cpu);
>> + if (ret < 0)
>> + return ret;
>> + *vector = ret;
>> +
>> + return 0;
> Why not simply returning the result of irq_matrix_alloc() and checking
> it for negative value at the call site. If not negative then use it as
> vector. That spares the whole indirection and makes the code readable.
ok, I will simplify this part of the code
>
>> +static void loongarch_avec_sync(struct loongarch_avec_data *adata)
>> +{
>> + struct loongarch_avec_data *data;
>> + struct pending_list *plist;
>> +
>> + if (cpu_online(adata->prev_cpu)) {
>> + plist = per_cpu_ptr(&pending_list, adata->prev_cpu);
>> +
>> + data = kmalloc(sizeof(struct loongarch_avec_data), GFP_KERNEL);
> This is called from loongarch_avec_set_affinity() with raw spinlocks
> held and interrupts disabled. So GFP_KERNEL cannot work. You clearly did
> not test that code with proper debug options enabled.
>
> But even GFP_ATOMIC won't work when you want to support PREEMPT_RT as
> that does not allow allocations in such contexts.
>
> Look how x86 solves exactly this problem without allocations required.
I did not consider it thoroughly here. I have read the documentation and
code of
kernel memory management and will make corrections here in future versions
>
>> + if (!data) {
>> + pr_warn("NO space for clean data\n");
>> + return;
>> + }
>> + memcpy(data, adata, sizeof(struct loongarch_avec_data));
>> + INIT_LIST_HEAD(&data->entry);
>> +
>> + list_add_tail(&data->entry, &plist->head);
>> + loongson_send_ipi_single(adata->prev_cpu, SMP_CLEAR_VECT);
>> + }
>> + adata->prev_cpu = adata->cpu;
>> + adata->prev_vec = adata->vec;
>> +}
>> +
>> +static int loongarch_avec_set_affinity(struct irq_data *data,
>> + const struct cpumask *dest, bool force)
>> +{
>> + struct cpumask intersect_mask;
> No cpumasks on stack please. You can make that static as usage is always
> serialized via loongarch_avec.lock
Ok, I will correct this
>
>> + struct loongarch_avec_data *adata;
>> + unsigned int cpu, vector;
>> + unsigned long flags;
>> + int ret = 0;
>> +
>> + raw_spin_lock_irqsave(&loongarch_avec.lock, flags);
>> + adata = irq_data_get_irq_chip_data(data);
>> +
>> + if (adata->vec && cpu_online(adata->cpu)
>> + && cpumask_test_cpu(adata->cpu, dest)) {
> Please align the condition proper when you need a line break:
>
> if (adata->vec && cpu_online(adata->cpu) &&
> cpumask_test_cpu(adata->cpu, dest)) {
>
> But you don't need a line break here because
>
> if (adata->vec && cpu_online(adata->cpu) && cpumask_test_cpu(adata->cpu, dest)) {
>
> fits into the 100 character line width limit.
>
>> + raw_spin_unlock_irqrestore(&loongarch_avec.lock, flags);
>> + return 0;
>> + }
>> +
>> + if (!cpumask_intersects(dest, cpu_online_mask)) {
>> + raw_spin_unlock_irqrestore(&loongarch_avec.lock, flags);
>> + return -EINVAL;
>> + }
>> +
>> + cpumask_and(&intersect_mask, dest, cpu_online_mask);
> The above intersect check is pointless as the matrix allocator already
> checks the cpumask and returns -EINVAL if empty.
>
>> +
>> + ret = assign_irq_vector(data, &intersect_mask, &cpu, &vector);
>> + if (ret) {
>> + raw_spin_unlock_irqrestore(&loongarch_avec.lock, flags);
>> + return ret;
>> + }
>> +void complete_irq_moving(int *restart)
> What is the 'restart' argument for?
Sorry, This is the remaining part of the code evolution, which will be
removed in the future
>
>> +{
>> + struct pending_list *plist = this_cpu_ptr(&pending_list);
>> + struct loongarch_avec_data *adata, *tmp;
>> + int cpu, vector;
>> + u32 bias;
>> + u64 irr;
>> +
>> + raw_spin_lock(&loongarch_avec.lock);
>> +
>> + list_for_each_entry_safe(adata, tmp, &plist->head, entry) {
>> +
>> + cpu = adata->prev_cpu;
>> + vector = adata->prev_vec;
>> + bias = vector/64;
>> +
>> + switch (bias) {
>> + case 0x0:
>> + irr = csr_read64(LOONGARCH_CSR_IRR0);
>> + break;
>> + case 0x1:
>> + irr = csr_read64(LOONGARCH_CSR_IRR1);
>> + break;
>> + case 0x2:
>> + irr = csr_read64(LOONGARCH_CSR_IRR2);
>> + break;
>> + case 0x3:
>> + irr = csr_read64(LOONGARCH_CSR_IRR3);
>> + break;
>> + default:
>> + return;
> How can that happen ?
>
>> + }
> irr = csr_read64(LOONGARCH_CSR_IRR0 + vector / 64);
>
> should be good enough, no?
Our initial idea was to increase the readability of the code,
but it does seem more cumbersome. Perhaps we should define macros as
LOONGARCH_CSR_IRR_BASE
and adopt your approach, thanks
>
> Also please use a proper constant instead of '64', e.g. VECTORS_PER_IRR
>
>> +
>> + if (irr & (1UL << (vector % 64))) {
>> + loongson_send_ipi_single(cpu, SMP_CLEAR_VECT);
> So this sends an IPI to the current CPU. What guarantees that the
> pending interrupt is handled _before_ the IPI is handled again?
In fact, LA adopts a software query interrupt method at the core
interrupt domain,
while IPI is routed to ip-12 and AVEC is routed to ip-14, ensuring that
the AVEC interrupt can receive a response after IPI
driver/irqchip/irq-loongson-cpu.c:
static void handle_cpu_irq(struct pt_regs *regs)
{
int hwirq;
unsigned int estat = read_csr_estat() & CSR_ESTAT_IS;
while ((hwirq = ffs(estat))) {
estat &= ~BIT(hwirq - 1);
generic_handle_domain_irq(irq_domain, hwirq - 1);
}
}
>
>> + continue;
>> + }
>> + list_del(&adata->entry);
>> + irq_matrix_free(loongarch_avec.vector_matrix, cpu, vector, false);
>> + this_cpu_ptr(irq_map)[vector] = 0;
> s/0/NULL/ as this writes a pointer.
>
> this_cpu_write(irq_map.irqd[vector], NULL);
>
> avoids the whole pointer indirection.
>
>> + kfree(adata);
> Again this won't work with PREEMPT_RT.
>
>> + }
>> + raw_spin_unlock(&loongarch_avec.lock);
>> +}
>> +
>> +static void loongarch_avec_dispatch(struct irq_desc *desc)
>> +{
>> + struct irq_chip *chip = irq_desc_get_chip(desc);
>> + struct irq_data *d;
>> + unsigned long vector;
>> +
>> + chained_irq_enter(chip, desc);
>> + vector = csr_read64(LOONGARCH_CSR_ILR);
>> + if (vector & 0x80000000)
> No magic numbers. Please use proper constant defines.
>
>> + return;
>> +
>> + vector &= 0xff;
> Ditto.
>
>> +
>> + d = raw_cpu_ptr(irq_map)[vector];
> Why raw?
>
> d = __this_cpu_read(...);
>
> Also, what is the point of storing irqdata in the irq_map if the only
> thing you use is d->irq. You can simply store the interrupt number, no?
>
> If you want to spare cycles for the lookup, then you want to store the
> interrupt descriptor like x86 does.
We will reconsider the implementation details of this section, thanks
>
>> + if (d)
>> + generic_handle_irq(d->irq);
>> + else
>> + pr_warn("IRQ ERROR:Unexpected irq occur on cpu %d[vector %d]\n",
>> + smp_processor_id(), vector);
> See bracket rules in the tip documentation.
>
>> + chained_irq_exit(chip, desc);
>> +}
>> +
>> +static int loongarch_avec_alloc(struct irq_domain *domain, unsigned int virq,
>> + unsigned int nr_irqs, void *arg)
>> +{
>> + struct loongarch_avec_data *adata;
>> + struct irq_data *irqd;
>> + unsigned int cpu, vector;
>> + unsigned long flags;
>> + int i, err;
> See variable declaration rules in the tip documentation
>
>> + raw_spin_lock_irqsave(&loongarch_avec.lock, flags);
>> + for (i = 0; i < nr_irqs; i++) {
>> + irqd = irq_domain_get_irq_data(domain, virq + i);
>> + adata = kzalloc(sizeof(*adata), GFP_KERNEL);
>> + if (!adata) {
>> + raw_spin_unlock_irqrestore(&loongarch_avec.lock, flags);
>> + return -ENOMEM;
>> + }
>> + err = assign_irq_vector(irqd, cpu_online_mask, &cpu, &vector);
>> + if (err) {
>> + raw_spin_unlock_irqrestore(&loongarch_avec.lock, flags);
>> + return err;
>> + }
>> + adata->prev_cpu = adata->cpu = cpu;
>> + adata->prev_vec = adata->vec = vector;
>> +
>> + per_cpu_ptr(irq_map, adata->cpu)[adata->vec] = irqd;
> This needs to be set last, no?
>
>> + irq_domain_set_info(domain, virq + i, virq, &loongarch_avec_controller,
>> + adata, handle_edge_irq, NULL, NULL);
>> + irqd_set_single_target(irqd);
>> + irqd_set_affinity_on_activate(irqd);
>> + }
>> + raw_spin_unlock_irqrestore(&loongarch_avec.lock, flags);
>> +
>> + return err;
>> +}
>> +
>> +static void loongarch_avec_free(struct irq_domain *domain, unsigned int virq,
>> + unsigned int nr_irqs)
>> +{
>> + struct loongarch_avec_data *adata;
>> + struct irq_data *d;
>> + unsigned long flags;
>> + unsigned int i;
>> +
>> + raw_spin_lock_irqsave(&loongarch_avec.lock, flags);
>> + for (i = 0; i < nr_irqs; i++) {
>> + d = irq_domain_get_irq_data(domain, virq + i);
>> + adata = irq_data_get_irq_chip_data(d);
>> + if (d) {
>> + irq_matrix_free(loongarch_avec.vector_matrix,
>> + adata->cpu,
>> + adata->vec, false);
>> + irq_domain_reset_irq_data(d);
>> + }
> What cleans up the irq_map and pending cleanups? There is a UAF waiting
> around the corner.
>
>> + }
>> +
>> + raw_spin_unlock_irqrestore(&loongarch_avec.lock, flags);
>> +}
>> +static int __init loongarch_avec_init(struct irq_domain *parent)
>> +{
>> + int ret = 0, parent_irq;
>> + unsigned long tmp;
>> +
>> + tmp = iocsr_read64(LOONGARCH_IOCSR_MISC_FUNC);
>> + tmp |= IOCSR_MISC_FUNC_AVEC_EN;
>> + iocsr_write64(tmp, LOONGARCH_IOCSR_MISC_FUNC);
> Enabling AVEC _before_ everything is set up is a patently bad idea.
>
>> + raw_spin_lock_init(&loongarch_avec.lock);
>> +
>> + loongarch_avec.fwnode = irq_domain_alloc_named_fwnode("CORE_AVEC");
>> + if (!loongarch_avec.fwnode) {
>> + pr_err("Unable to allocate domain handle\n");
>> + ret = -ENOMEM;
>> + goto out;
>> + }
>> +
>> + loongarch_avec.domain = irq_domain_create_tree(loongarch_avec.fwnode,
>> + &loongarch_avec_domain_ops, NULL);
>> + if (!loongarch_avec.domain) {
>> + pr_err("core-vec: cannot create IRQ domain\n");
>> + ret = -ENOMEM;
>> + goto out_free_handle;
>> + }
>> +
>> + parent_irq = irq_create_mapping(parent, INT_AVEC);
>> + if (!parent_irq) {
>> + pr_err("Failed to mapping hwirq\n");
>> + ret = -EINVAL;
>> + goto out_remove_domain;
>> + }
>> + irq_set_chained_handler_and_data(parent_irq, loongarch_avec_dispatch, NULL);
>> +
>> + ret = irq_matrix_init();
>> + if (ret) {
>> + pr_err("Failed to init irq matrix\n");
>> + goto out_free_matrix;
>> + }
>> +
>> + return ret;
>> +
>> +out_free_matrix:
>> + kfree(loongarch_avec.vector_matrix);
>> +out_remove_domain:
>> + irq_domain_remove(loongarch_avec.domain);
>> +out_free_handle:
>> + irq_domain_free_fwnode(loongarch_avec.fwnode);
>> +out:
>> + return ret;
>> +}
>> +
>> +static int loongarch_avec_offline_cpu(unsigned int cpu)
>> +{
>> + unsigned long flags;
>> + struct pending_list *plist = per_cpu_ptr(&pending_list, cpu);
>> +
>> + raw_spin_lock_irqsave(&loongarch_avec.lock, flags);
>> + if (list_empty(&plist->head)) {
>> + irq_matrix_offline(loongarch_avec.vector_matrix);
>> + } else {
>> + pr_warn("cpu %d advanced extioi is busy\n");
>> + raw_spin_unlock_irqrestore(&loongarch_avec.lock, flags);
>> + return -EBUSY;
>> + }
>> + raw_spin_unlock_irqrestore(&loongarch_avec.lock, flags);
>> + return 0;
>> +}
>> +
>> +static int loongarch_avec_online_cpu(unsigned int cpu)
>> +{
>> + struct pending_list *plist = per_cpu_ptr(&pending_list, cpu);
>> + unsigned long flags;
>> +
>> + raw_spin_lock_irqsave(&loongarch_avec.lock, flags);
>> +
>> + irq_matrix_online(loongarch_avec.vector_matrix);
>> +
>> + INIT_LIST_HEAD(&plist->head);
>> +
>> + raw_spin_unlock_irqrestore(&loongarch_avec.lock, flags);
>> + return 0;
>> +}
>> +#if defined(CONFIG_ACPI)
> Missing newline before #if and also please use #ifdef CONFIG_ACPI
>
>> +static int __init pch_msi_parse_madt(union acpi_subtable_headers *header,
>> + const unsigned long end)
>> +{
>> + struct acpi_madt_msi_pic *pchmsi_entry = (struct acpi_madt_msi_pic *)header;
>> +
>> + msi_base_v2 = pchmsi_entry->msg_address;
>> + return pch_msi_acpi_init_v2(loongarch_avec.domain, pchmsi_entry);
>> +}
>> +
>> +static inline int __init acpi_cascade_irqdomain_init(void)
>> +{
>> + return acpi_table_parse_madt(ACPI_MADT_TYPE_MSI_PIC, pch_msi_parse_madt, 1);
>> +}
>> +
>> +int __init loongarch_avec_acpi_init(struct irq_domain *parent)
>> +{
>> + int ret = 0;
>> +
>> + ret = loongarch_avec_init(parent);
>> + if (ret) {
>> + pr_err("Failed to init irq domain\n");
>> + return ret;
>> + }
>> +
>> + ret = acpi_cascade_irqdomain_init();
>> + if (ret) {
>> + pr_err("Failed to cascade IRQ domain\n");
>> + return ret;
>> + }
>> +
>> + ret = cpuhp_setup_state_nocalls(CPUHP_AP_ONLINE_DYN,
>> + "loongarch_avec:online",
>> + loongarch_avec_online_cpu, loongarch_avec_offline_cpu);
> You cannot online/offline the matrix and handle eventually pending
> cleanups from a CPUHP_AP_ONLINE_DYN state. That needs to happen in the
> STARTING section between CPUHP_AP_OFFLINE and CPUHP_AP_ONLINE
We will readjust the code for the CPU on/offline section. Thank you for
your correction
>
>> + if (ret < 0) {
>> + pr_err("loongarch_avec: failed to register hotplug callbacks.\n");
>> + return ret;
>> + }
>> +
>> + return ret;
> So if CONFIG_ACPI is disabled then loongarch_avec_init() is unused and
> results in a defined but not used build warning...
>
>> diff --git a/drivers/irqchip/irq-loongson-pch-msi.c b/drivers/irqchip/irq-loongson-pch-msi.c
>> index 6e1e1f011bb2..d1706080b4f4 100644
>> --- a/drivers/irqchip/irq-loongson-pch-msi.c
>> +++ b/drivers/irqchip/irq-loongson-pch-msi.c
>> @@ -16,7 +16,6 @@
>> #include <linux/slab.h>
>>
>> static int nr_pics;
>> -
>> struct pch_msi_data {
>> struct mutex msi_map_lock;
>> phys_addr_t doorbell;
>> @@ -100,6 +99,17 @@ static struct irq_chip middle_irq_chip = {
>> .irq_compose_msi_msg = pch_msi_compose_msi_msg,
>> };
>>
>> +static struct irq_chip pch_msi_irq_chip_v2 = {
>> + .name = "MSI",
>> + .irq_ack = irq_chip_ack_parent,
>> +};
>> +
>> +static struct msi_domain_info pch_msi_domain_info_v2 = {
>> + .flags = MSI_FLAG_USE_DEF_DOM_OPS | MSI_FLAG_USE_DEF_CHIP_OPS |
>> + MSI_FLAG_MULTI_PCI_MSI | MSI_FLAG_PCI_MSIX,
>> + .chip = &pch_msi_irq_chip_v2,
>> +};
>> +
>> static int pch_msi_parent_domain_alloc(struct irq_domain *domain,
>> unsigned int virq, int hwirq)
>> {
>> @@ -268,6 +278,9 @@ struct fwnode_handle *get_pch_msi_handle(int pci_segment)
>> {
>> int i;
>>
>> + if (cpu_has_avecint)
>> + return pch_msi_handle[0];
>> +
>> for (i = 0; i < MAX_IO_PICS; i++) {
>> if (msi_group[i].pci_segment == pci_segment)
>> return pch_msi_handle[i];
>> @@ -289,4 +302,34 @@ int __init pch_msi_acpi_init(struct irq_domain *parent,
>>
>> return ret;
>> }
>> +
>> +int __init pch_msi_acpi_init_v2(struct irq_domain *parent,
>> + struct acpi_madt_msi_pic *msi_entry)
>> +{
>> + struct irq_domain *msi_domain;
>> +
>> + if (pch_msi_handle[0])
>> + return 0;
>> +
>> + pch_msi_handle[0] = irq_domain_alloc_named_fwnode("msipic-v2");
>> + if (!pch_msi_handle[0]) {
>> + pr_err("Unable to allocate domain handle\n");
>> + kfree(pch_msi_handle[0]);
>> + return -ENOMEM;
>> + }
>> +
>> + msi_domain = pci_msi_create_irq_domain(pch_msi_handle[0],
>> + &pch_msi_domain_info_v2,
>> + parent);
>> + if (!msi_domain) {
>> + pr_err("Failed to create PCI MSI domain\n");
>> + kfree(pch_msi_handle[0]);
>> + return -ENOMEM;
>> + }
>> +
>> + pr_info("IRQ domain MSIPIC-V2 init done.\n");
>> + return 0;
>> +}
>> +
>> +
> Stray newlines. But as with the other CONFIG_ACPI part above a build
> with CONFIG_ACPI=n will result in defined but not used warnings ....
We will readjust the code for the CPU on/offline section. Thank you for
your correction
>
> Thanks,
>
> tglx
Thanks
Tianyang
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2024-05-14 2:40 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 10+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2024-05-07 12:59 [PATCH 2/2] Loongarch:Support loongarch avec Tianyang Zhang
2024-05-07 14:20 ` Xi Ruoyao
2024-05-13 6:41 ` Tianyang Zhang
2024-05-08 6:19 ` kernel test robot
2024-05-08 7:00 ` maobibo
2024-05-13 6:53 ` Tianyang Zhang
2024-05-08 9:43 ` Thomas Gleixner
2024-05-14 2:39 ` Tianyang Zhang [this message]
2024-05-08 21:18 ` kernel test robot
2024-05-08 21:28 ` kernel test robot
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=27cd7657-e30b-845e-33f3-3cf55aa8540f@loongson.cn \
--to=zhangtianyang@loongson.cn \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=chenhuacai@kernel.org \
--cc=dianders@chromium.org \
--cc=gaoliang@loongson.cn \
--cc=jiaxun.yang@flygoat.com \
--cc=kernel@xen0n.name \
--cc=linux-doc@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=loongarch@lists.linux.dev \
--cc=lvjianmin@loongson.cn \
--cc=maobibo@loongson.cn \
--cc=mhocko@suse.com \
--cc=nathan@kernel.org \
--cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
--cc=wangliupu@loongson.cn \
--cc=xry111@xry111.site \
--cc=yangtiezhu@loongson.cn \
--cc=yijun@loongson.cn \
--cc=zhaotianrui@loongson.cn \
--cc=zhoubinbin@loongson.cn \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).