netdev - Re: RISC-V for-next/fixes (cont'd from PW sync)

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <87sf09pfmu.fsf@all.your.base.are.belong.to.us>
Date: Fri, 29 Mar 2024 10:10:49 +0100
From: Björn Töpel <bjorn@...nel.org>
To: Conor Dooley <conor.dooley@...rochip.com>, Alexandre Ghiti
 <alexghiti@...osinc.com>
Cc: Conor Dooley <conor@...nel.org>, Paul Walmsley
 <paul.walmsley@...ive.com>, Palmer Dabbelt <palmer@...belt.com>, Albert Ou
 <aou@...s.berkeley.edu>, Emil Renner Berthing <kernel@...il.dk>, Samuel
 Holland <samuel.holland@...ive.com>, Björn Töpel
 <bjorn@...osinc.com>,
 linux-riscv@...ts.infradead.org, Andy Chiu <andy.chiu@...ive.com>, Jakub
 Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
 netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: RISC-V for-next/fixes (cont'd from PW sync)

Conor Dooley <conor.dooley@...rochip.com> writes:

> On Fri, Mar 29, 2024 at 07:46:38AM +0100, Alexandre Ghiti wrote:
>> On Wed, Mar 27, 2024 at 9:32 PM Conor Dooley <conor@...nel.org> wrote:
>> >
>> > On Wed, Mar 27, 2024 at 08:57:50PM +0100, Björn Töpel wrote:
>> > > Hi,
>> > >
>> > > I figured I'd put some words on the "how to update the RISC-V
>> > > for-next/fixes branches [1]" that came up on the patchwork call today.
>> > >
>> > > In RISC-V land, the for-next branch is used for features, and typically
>> > > sent as a couple of PRs to Linus when the merge window is open. The
>> > > fixes branch is sent as PR(s) between the RCs of a release.
>> > >
>> > > Today, the baseline for for-next/fixes is the CURRENT_RELEASE-rc1, and
>> > > features/fixes are based on that.
>> > >
>> > > This has IMO a couple of issues:
>> > >
>> > > 1. fixes is missing the non-RISC-V fixes from releases later than
>> > >    -rc1, which makes it harder for contributors.
>> 
>> The syzbot report [1] requires fixes in mm [2], if we don't update
>> fixes on top of the latest -rcX, we'll keep hitting this bug, so
>> rebasing -fixes on top of the latest -rcX is necessary to me.
>
> No non-ff rebasing of branches unless its 101% required, please. This
> seems like a justifiable reason to merge the rc it appears in into the
> riscv branches though.

Are you talking past each other? I'm *not* saying rebase (agree with
Conor!). I'm saying "let's move fixes up to the point to include the
merge (and whatever on Linus' tip at the point of merge), i.e.
*ff-only*.

Now, rest your eyes on this fabulous cartoon:

  Linus' master
  |
  v
  o o <-- RISC-V fixes
  | |
  . .
  . .
  
  Linus accepts the PR...
  
  o <-- Merge tag 'riscv-for-linus-meh-rc7'...
  |\
  o o <-- RISC-V fixes
  | |
  . .
  . .
  
  and then move fixes, git merge --ff-only:
  
  o <-- Merge tag 'riscv-for-linus-meh-rc7'..., RISC-V fixes
  |\
  o o 
  | |
  . .
  . .

Clearer?


Björn