From: Heiko Stuebner <[email protected]>
As Andrew reported,
Zb* comes after Zi* according 27.11 "Subset Naming Convention"
so fix the ordering accordingly.
Reported-by: Andrew Jones <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Heiko Stuebner <[email protected]>
---
arch/riscv/kernel/cpu.c | 2 +-
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/arch/riscv/kernel/cpu.c b/arch/riscv/kernel/cpu.c
index 420228e219f7..8400f0cc9704 100644
--- a/arch/riscv/kernel/cpu.c
+++ b/arch/riscv/kernel/cpu.c
@@ -185,9 +185,9 @@ arch_initcall(riscv_cpuinfo_init);
* New entries to this struct should follow the ordering rules described above.
*/
static struct riscv_isa_ext_data isa_ext_arr[] = {
- __RISCV_ISA_EXT_DATA(zbb, RISCV_ISA_EXT_ZBB),
__RISCV_ISA_EXT_DATA(zicbom, RISCV_ISA_EXT_ZICBOM),
__RISCV_ISA_EXT_DATA(zihintpause, RISCV_ISA_EXT_ZIHINTPAUSE),
+ __RISCV_ISA_EXT_DATA(zbb, RISCV_ISA_EXT_ZBB),
__RISCV_ISA_EXT_DATA(sscofpmf, RISCV_ISA_EXT_SSCOFPMF),
__RISCV_ISA_EXT_DATA(sstc, RISCV_ISA_EXT_SSTC),
__RISCV_ISA_EXT_DATA(svinval, RISCV_ISA_EXT_SVINVAL),
--
2.39.0
Hey Heiko,
On 8 February 2023 22:53:27 GMT, Heiko Stuebner <[email protected]> wrote:
>From: Heiko Stuebner <[email protected]>
>
>As Andrew reported,
> Zb* comes after Zi* according 27.11 "Subset Naming Convention"
>so fix the ordering accordingly.
>
>Reported-by: Andrew Jones <[email protected]>
>Signed-off-by: Heiko Stuebner <[email protected]>
The whole "getting it wrong immediately after fixing it up" ;)
Reviewed-by: Conor Dooley <[email protected]>
>---
> arch/riscv/kernel/cpu.c | 2 +-
> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
>diff --git a/arch/riscv/kernel/cpu.c b/arch/riscv/kernel/cpu.c
>index 420228e219f7..8400f0cc9704 100644
>--- a/arch/riscv/kernel/cpu.c
>+++ b/arch/riscv/kernel/cpu.c
>@@ -185,9 +185,9 @@ arch_initcall(riscv_cpuinfo_init);
> * New entries to this struct should follow the ordering rules described above.
> */
> static struct riscv_isa_ext_data isa_ext_arr[] = {
>- __RISCV_ISA_EXT_DATA(zbb, RISCV_ISA_EXT_ZBB),
> __RISCV_ISA_EXT_DATA(zicbom, RISCV_ISA_EXT_ZICBOM),
> __RISCV_ISA_EXT_DATA(zihintpause, RISCV_ISA_EXT_ZIHINTPAUSE),
>+ __RISCV_ISA_EXT_DATA(zbb, RISCV_ISA_EXT_ZBB),
> __RISCV_ISA_EXT_DATA(sscofpmf, RISCV_ISA_EXT_SSCOFPMF),
> __RISCV_ISA_EXT_DATA(sstc, RISCV_ISA_EXT_SSTC),
> __RISCV_ISA_EXT_DATA(svinval, RISCV_ISA_EXT_SVINVAL),
Am Donnerstag, 9. Februar 2023, 00:20:10 CET schrieb Conor Dooley:
> Hey Heiko,
>
> On 8 February 2023 22:53:27 GMT, Heiko Stuebner <[email protected]> wrote:
> >From: Heiko Stuebner <[email protected]>
> >
> >As Andrew reported,
> > Zb* comes after Zi* according 27.11 "Subset Naming Convention"
> >so fix the ordering accordingly.
> >
> >Reported-by: Andrew Jones <[email protected]>
> >Signed-off-by: Heiko Stuebner <[email protected]>
>
> The whole "getting it wrong immediately after fixing it up" ;)
>
> Reviewed-by: Conor Dooley <[email protected]>
I'm still hopefully that I'll learn at some point that "b" comes after "i",
at least with riscv extensions. Decades of sorting the other way around are
hard to break :-D .
> >---
> > arch/riscv/kernel/cpu.c | 2 +-
> > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> >
> >diff --git a/arch/riscv/kernel/cpu.c b/arch/riscv/kernel/cpu.c
> >index 420228e219f7..8400f0cc9704 100644
> >--- a/arch/riscv/kernel/cpu.c
> >+++ b/arch/riscv/kernel/cpu.c
> >@@ -185,9 +185,9 @@ arch_initcall(riscv_cpuinfo_init);
> > * New entries to this struct should follow the ordering rules described above.
> > */
> > static struct riscv_isa_ext_data isa_ext_arr[] = {
> >- __RISCV_ISA_EXT_DATA(zbb, RISCV_ISA_EXT_ZBB),
> > __RISCV_ISA_EXT_DATA(zicbom, RISCV_ISA_EXT_ZICBOM),
> > __RISCV_ISA_EXT_DATA(zihintpause, RISCV_ISA_EXT_ZIHINTPAUSE),
> >+ __RISCV_ISA_EXT_DATA(zbb, RISCV_ISA_EXT_ZBB),
> > __RISCV_ISA_EXT_DATA(sscofpmf, RISCV_ISA_EXT_SSCOFPMF),
> > __RISCV_ISA_EXT_DATA(sstc, RISCV_ISA_EXT_SSTC),
> > __RISCV_ISA_EXT_DATA(svinval, RISCV_ISA_EXT_SVINVAL),
>
On Wed, Feb 08, 2023 at 11:53:27PM +0100, Heiko Stuebner wrote:
> From: Heiko Stuebner <[email protected]>
>
> As Andrew reported,
> Zb* comes after Zi* according 27.11 "Subset Naming Convention"
> so fix the ordering accordingly.
>
> Reported-by: Andrew Jones <[email protected]>
> Signed-off-by: Heiko Stuebner <[email protected]>
> ---
> arch/riscv/kernel/cpu.c | 2 +-
> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/arch/riscv/kernel/cpu.c b/arch/riscv/kernel/cpu.c
> index 420228e219f7..8400f0cc9704 100644
> --- a/arch/riscv/kernel/cpu.c
> +++ b/arch/riscv/kernel/cpu.c
> @@ -185,9 +185,9 @@ arch_initcall(riscv_cpuinfo_init);
> * New entries to this struct should follow the ordering rules described above.
> */
> static struct riscv_isa_ext_data isa_ext_arr[] = {
> - __RISCV_ISA_EXT_DATA(zbb, RISCV_ISA_EXT_ZBB),
> __RISCV_ISA_EXT_DATA(zicbom, RISCV_ISA_EXT_ZICBOM),
> __RISCV_ISA_EXT_DATA(zihintpause, RISCV_ISA_EXT_ZIHINTPAUSE),
> + __RISCV_ISA_EXT_DATA(zbb, RISCV_ISA_EXT_ZBB),
> __RISCV_ISA_EXT_DATA(sscofpmf, RISCV_ISA_EXT_SSCOFPMF),
> __RISCV_ISA_EXT_DATA(sstc, RISCV_ISA_EXT_SSTC),
> __RISCV_ISA_EXT_DATA(svinval, RISCV_ISA_EXT_SVINVAL),
> --
> 2.39.0
>
Reviewed-by: Andrew Jones <[email protected]>
On Wed, Feb 08, 2023 at 11:20:10PM +0000, Conor Dooley wrote:
> Hey Heiko,
>
> On 8 February 2023 22:53:27 GMT, Heiko Stuebner <[email protected]> wrote:
> >From: Heiko Stuebner <[email protected]>
> >
> >As Andrew reported,
> > Zb* comes after Zi* according 27.11 "Subset Naming Convention"
> >so fix the ordering accordingly.
> >
> >Reported-by: Andrew Jones <[email protected]>
> >Signed-off-by: Heiko Stuebner <[email protected]>
>
> The whole "getting it wrong immediately after fixing it up" ;)
Hi Conor,
Do you know any patchwork savvy people that could whip up a check
for this array? :-)
drew
On Thu, Feb 09, 2023 at 09:25:20AM +0100, Andrew Jones wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 08, 2023 at 11:20:10PM +0000, Conor Dooley wrote:
> > Hey Heiko,
> >
> > On 8 February 2023 22:53:27 GMT, Heiko Stuebner <[email protected]> wrote:
> > >From: Heiko Stuebner <[email protected]>
> > >
> > >As Andrew reported,
> > > Zb* comes after Zi* according 27.11 "Subset Naming Convention"
> > >so fix the ordering accordingly.
> > >
> > >Reported-by: Andrew Jones <[email protected]>
> > >Signed-off-by: Heiko Stuebner <[email protected]>
> >
> > The whole "getting it wrong immediately after fixing it up" ;)
>
> Hi Conor,
>
> Do you know any patchwork savvy people that could whip up a check
> for this array? :-)
Maybe that is more of a checkpatch type thing?
Either way, I'll put it on the todo list I suppose!
On Thu, Feb 09, 2023 at 09:03:50AM +0000, Conor Dooley wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 09, 2023 at 09:25:20AM +0100, Andrew Jones wrote:
> > On Wed, Feb 08, 2023 at 11:20:10PM +0000, Conor Dooley wrote:
> > > Hey Heiko,
> > >
> > > On 8 February 2023 22:53:27 GMT, Heiko Stuebner <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > >From: Heiko Stuebner <[email protected]>
> > > >
> > > >As Andrew reported,
> > > > Zb* comes after Zi* according 27.11 "Subset Naming Convention"
> > > >so fix the ordering accordingly.
> > > >
> > > >Reported-by: Andrew Jones <[email protected]>
> > > >Signed-off-by: Heiko Stuebner <[email protected]>
> > >
> > > The whole "getting it wrong immediately after fixing it up" ;)
> >
> > Hi Conor,
> >
> > Do you know any patchwork savvy people that could whip up a check
> > for this array? :-)
>
> Maybe that is more of a checkpatch type thing?
I think this is too specific for general checkpatch. I once proposed on
the KVM mailing list that checkpatch should gain support for plugins,
allowing specific directories to provide a .checkpatch script, or
whatever, where it puts its own checks. I never followed-up by actually
proposing that to checkpatch maintainers though.
>
> Either way, I'll put it on the todo list I suppose!
In the absence of checkpatch plugins, I think subsystem-specific
patch management tools, like patchwork, are the next best place
to put specific checks. But, I agree it's a bit late. It'd be better
if the developers could run the checks themselves before posting.
Thanks,
drew