Message-ID: <Y45LRu0Gvrurm5Rh@spud>
Date:   Mon, 5 Dec 2022 19:49:26 +0000
From:   Conor Dooley <conor@...nel.org>
To:     Heiko Stübner <heiko@...ech.de>
Cc:     Jisheng Zhang <jszhang@...nel.org>,
        Palmer Dabbelt <palmer@...belt.com>,
        Paul Walmsley <paul.walmsley@...ive.com>,
        Albert Ou <aou@...s.berkeley.edu>,
        Anup Patel <anup@...infault.org>,
        Atish Patra <atishp@...shpatra.org>,
        Andrew Jones <ajones@...tanamicro.com>,
        linux-riscv@...ts.infradead.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        kvm@...r.kernel.org, kvm-riscv@...ts.infradead.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 01/13] riscv: fix jal offsets in patched alternatives

On Mon, Dec 05, 2022 at 07:49:01PM +0100, Heiko Stübner wrote:
> Am Montag, 5. Dezember 2022, 19:36:45 CET schrieb Conor Dooley:
> > Heiko, Jisheng,
> > On Mon, Dec 05, 2022 at 11:40:44PM +0800, Jisheng Zhang wrote:
> > > Yesterday, I also wanted to unify the two instruction fix into
> > > one. But that would need to roll back the
> > > riscv_alternative_fix_auipc_jalr() to your v1 version. And IMHO,
> > > it's better if you can split the Zbb string optimizations series
> > > into two: one for alternative improvements, another for Zbb. Then
> > > we may get the alternative improvements and this inst extension
> > > series merged in v6.2-rc1.
> > 
> > Heiko, perhaps you can correct me here:
> > 
> > Last Wednesday you & Palmer agreed that it was too late in the cycle to
> > apply any of the stuff touching alternatives?
> > If I do recall correctly, gives plenty of time to sort out any
> > interdependent changes here.
> > 
> > Could easily be misremembering, wouldn't be the first time!
> 
> You slightly misremembered, but are still correct with the above ;-) .
> 
> I.e. what we talked about was stuff for fixes for 6.1-rc, were Palmers
> wisely wanted to limit additions to really easy fixes for the remaining
> last rc, to not upset any existing boards.

Ahh right. I was 50-50 on whether something like that was said so at
least I am not going crazy.

> But you are still correct that we also shouldn't target the 6.2 merge window
> anymore :-) .
> 
> We're after -rc8 now (which is in itself uncommon) and in his -rc7
> announcement [0], Linus stated
> 
> "[...] the usual rule is that things that I get sent for the
> merge window should have been all ready _before_ the merge window
> opened. But with the merge window happening largely during the holiday
> season, I'll just be enforcing that pretty strictly."

Yah, of all the windows to land patchsets that are being re-spun a few
days before it opens this probably isn't the best one to pick!

> That means new stuff should be reviewed and in linux-next _way before_ the
> merge window opens next weekend. Taking into account that people need
> to review stuff (and maybe the series needing another round), I really don't
> see this happening this week and everything else will get us shouted at
> from atop a christmas tree ;-) .
> 
> That's the reason most maintainer-trees stop accepting stuff after -rc7

Aye, in RISC-V land maybe we will get there one day :)

For the original question though, breaking them up into 3 or 4 smaller
bits that could get applied on their own is probably a good idea?

Between yourselves, Drew and Prabhakar there's a couple series touching
the same bits. Certainly don't want to seem like I am speaking for the
Higher Powers here, but some sort of logical ordering would probably be
a good idea so as not to hold each other up?
The non-string bit of your series has been fairly well reviewed & would,
in theory, be mergeable once the tree re-opens? Timing aside, Jisheng's
idea seems like a good one, no?


Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (229 bytes)

Powered by blists - more mailing lists