Message-ID: <d6e2b882-ae97-1984-fc03-2ac595ee56b4@redhat.com>
Date:   Tue, 27 Apr 2021 09:04:35 +0200
From:   Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>
To:     Anup Patel <anup@...infault.org>,
        Palmer Dabbelt <palmer@...belt.com>
Cc:     Paul Walmsley <paul.walmsley@...ive.com>,
        Anup Patel <Anup.Patel@....com>,
        Albert Ou <aou@...s.berkeley.edu>,
        Alexander Graf <graf@...zon.com>,
        Atish Patra <Atish.Patra@....com>,
        Alistair Francis <Alistair.Francis@....com>,
        Damien Le Moal <Damien.LeMoal@....com>,
        KVM General <kvm@...r.kernel.org>,
        kvm-riscv@...ts.infradead.org,
        linux-riscv <linux-riscv@...ts.infradead.org>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org List" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v16 00/17] KVM RISC-V Support

On 27/04/21 08:01, Anup Patel wrote:
> Hi Paolo,
> 
> Looks like it will take more time for KVM RISC-V to be merged under arch/riscv.
> 
> Let's go ahead with your suggestion of having KVM RISC-V under drivers/staging
> so that development is not blocked.
> 
> I will send-out v18 series which will add KVM RISC-V under the staging
> directory.
> 
> Should we target Linux-5.14 ?

Yes, 5.14 is reasonable.  You'll have to adjust the MMU notifiers for 
the new API introduced in 5.13.

Paolo

> Regards,
> Anup
> 
> On Tue, Apr 27, 2021 at 11:13 AM Paul Walmsley <paul.walmsley@...ive.com> wrote:
>>
>> On Fri, 9 Apr 2021, Palmer Dabbelt wrote:
>>
>>> On Wed, 31 Mar 2021 02:21:58 PDT (-0700), pbonzini@...hat.com wrote:
>>>
>>>> Palmer, are you okay with merging RISC-V KVM?  Or should we place it in
>>>> drivers/staging/riscv/kvm?
>>>
>>> I'm certainly ready to drop my objections to merging the code based on
>>> it targeting a draft extension, but at a bare minimum I want to get a
>>> new policy in place that everyone can agree to for merging code.  I've
>>> tried to draft up a new policy a handful of times this week, but I'm not
>>> really quite sure how to go about this: ultimately trying to build
>>> stable interfaces around an unstable ISA is just a losing battle.  I've
>>> got a bunch of stuff going on right now, but I'll try to find some time
>>> to actually sit down and finish one.
>>>
>>> I know it might seem odd to complain about how slowly things are going
>>> and then throw up another roadblock, but I really do think this is a
>>> very important thing to get right.  I'm just not sure how we're going to
>>> get anywhere with RISC-V without someone providing stability, so I want
>>> to make sure that whatever we do here can be done reliably.  If we don't
>>> I'm worried the vendors are just going to go off and do their own
>>> software stacks, which will make getting everyone back on the same page
>>> very difficult.
>>
>> I sympathize with Paolo, Anup, and others also.  Especially Anup, who has
>> been updating and carrying the hypervisor patches for a long time now.
>> And also Greentime, who has been carrying the V extension patches.  The
>> RISC-V hypervisor specification, like several other RISC-V draft
>> specifications, is taking longer to transition to the officially "frozen"
>> stage than almost anyone in the RISC-V community would like.
>>
>> Since we share this frustration, the next questions are:
>>
>> - What are the root causes of the problem?
>>
>> - What's the right forum to address the root causes?
>>
>> To me, the root causes of the problems described in this thread aren't
>> with the arch/riscv kernel maintenance guidelines, but rather with the
>> RISC-V specification process itself.  And the right forum to address
>> issues with the RISC-V specification process is with RISC-V International
>> itself: the mailing lists, the participants, and the board of directors.
>> Part of the challenge -- not simply with RISC-V, but with the Linux kernel
>> or any other community -- is to ensure that incentives (and disincentives)
>> are aligned with the appropriately responsible parts of the community.
>> And when it comes to specification development, the right focus to align
>> those incentives and disincentives is on RISC-V International.
>>
>> The arch/riscv patch acceptance guidelines are simply intended to ensure
>> that the definition of what is and isn't RISC-V remains clear and
>> unambiguous.  Even though the guidelines can result in short-term pain,
>> the intention is to promote long-term stability and sustainable
>> maintainability - particularly since the specifications get baked into
>> hardware.  We've observed that attempting to chase draft specifications
>> can cause significant churn: for example, the history of the RISC-V vector
>> specification illustrates how a draft extension can undergo major,
>> unexpected revisions throughout its journey towards ratification.  One of
>> our responsibilities as kernel developers is to minimize that churn - not
>> simply for our own sanity, or for the usability of RISC-V, but to ensure
>> that we remain members in good standing of the broader kernel community.
>> Those of us who were around for the ARM32 and ARM SoC kernel accelerando
>> absorbed strong lessons in maintainability, and I doubt anyone here is
>> interested in re-learning those the hard way.
>>
>> RVI states that the association is open to community participation.  The
>> organizations that have joined RVI, I believe, have a strong stake in the
>> health of the RISC-V ecosystem, just as the folks have here in this
>> discussion.  If the goal really is to get quality specifications out the
>> door faster, then let's focus the energy towards building consensus
>> towards improving the process at RISC-V International.  If that's
>> possible, the benefits won't only accrue to Linux developers, but to the
>> entire RISC-V hardware and software development community at large.  If
>> nothing else, it will be an interesting test of whether RISC-V
>> International can take action to address these concerns and balance them
>> with those of other stakeholders in the process.
>>
>>
>> - Paul
> 

Powered by blists - more mailing lists