linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] riscv: defconfig: run savedefconfig to reorder it

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <mhng-131B0C4B-6AD9-4B65-BC91-927FD725E63F@palmerdabbelt-mac>
Date: Thu, 12 Jun 2025 11:57:32 -0700 (PDT)
From: Palmer Dabbelt <palmer@...belt.com>
To: Alexandre Ghiti <alex@...ti.fr>
CC: dlan@...too.org, Conor Dooley <conor@...nel.org>,
  Paul Walmsley <paul.walmsley@...ive.com>, aou@...s.berkeley.edu, guodong@...cstar.com, linux-riscv@...ts.infradead.org,
  linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, spacemit@...ts.linux.dev
Subject:     Re: [PATCH] riscv: defconfig: run savedefconfig to reorder it

On Thu, 12 Jun 2025 06:12:09 PDT (-0700), Alexandre Ghiti wrote:
> On 6/12/25 11:32, Yixun Lan wrote:
>> Hi Alexandre,
>>
>> On 10:37 Thu 12 Jun     , Alexandre Ghiti wrote:
>>> Hi Yixun,
>>>
>>> On 6/11/25 16:56, Yixun Lan wrote:
>>>> Changes to defconfig should be always updated via 'make
>>>> savedefconfig', run this command to make it aligned again.
>>>>
>>>> This will ease the effort of reviewing changes of defconfig
>>>> in the future.
>>>>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Yixun Lan <dlan@...too.org>
>>>> ---
>>>> Update PDMA config bring in unnecessary changes[1], let's fix
>>>> it by run savedefconfig first.
>>>
>>> It would be easier if this patch was part of the PDMA series since the
>>> last patch will depend on it: @Guodong can you integrate this patch to
>>> your next revision of your patchset?
>>>
>> I'd rather make this patch independent, as nothing strongly ralated with PDMA,
>> and it probably would take several rounds for PDMA patch to be settled down..

Ya, I agree.

>> Besides, there is no problem for PDMA patch to depend on this patch if
>> needed (easy to use b4 to handle this..)

Yep, something like "b4 shazam -lts --merge --merge-base 958097bdf88"
should do it on the merge side -- and maybe you don't even need the 
merge base, if all the b4 send side stuff picks it up right.

>> The idea here is to get this patch merged as early as possible, as it's
>> quite straightforward, and other people may have similar problem instead
>> of PDMA here
>
>
> Ok makes sense, so let's Guodong deal with that then.

(for some reason this isn't showing up in patchwork)

I'm going to merge it as a single patch into for-next.  It'll loop 
through the tester, but things look in good shape so it shouldn't take 
too long.  This way there's a stable hash people can base stuff off, 
rather than waiting for some other patch set.

>
> Thanks,
>
> Alex
>
>
>>
>>> Thanks,
>>>
>>> Alex
>>>