Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
Date:   Thu, 1 Sep 2022 09:04:05 +0200
From:   Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@linutronix.de>
To:     Jisheng Zhang <jszhang@kernel.org>
Cc:     Paul Walmsley <paul.walmsley@sifive.com>,
        Palmer Dabbelt <palmer@dabbelt.com>,
        Albert Ou <aou@eecs.berkeley.edu>,
        Anup Patel <anup@brainfault.org>,
        Atish Patra <atishp@atishpatra.org>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
        Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>,
        linux-riscv@lists.infradead.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        kvm@vger.kernel.org, kvm-riscv@lists.infradead.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 0/5] riscv: add PREEMPT_RT support
Message-ID: <YxBZZWopVftK/WBk@linutronix.de>
References: <20220831175920.2806-1-jszhang@kernel.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20220831175920.2806-1-jszhang@kernel.org>
Precedence: bulk

On 2022-09-01 01:59:15 [+0800], Jisheng Zhang wrote:
> I assume patch1, patch2 and patch3 can be reviewed and merged for
> riscv-next, patch4 and patch5 can be reviewed and maintained in rt tree,
> and finally merged once the remaining patches in rt tree are all
> mainlined.

I would say so, yes.

What about JUMP_LABEL support? Do you halt all CPUs while patching the
code?

Sebastian