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;
From:   Heiko =?ISO-8859-1?Q?St=FCbner?= <heiko@sntech.de>
To:     Conor Dooley <conor@kernel.org>
Cc:     Jisheng Zhang <jszhang@kernel.org>,
        Palmer Dabbelt <palmer@dabbelt.com>,
        Paul Walmsley <paul.walmsley@sifive.com>,
        Albert Ou <aou@eecs.berkeley.edu>,
        Anup Patel <anup@brainfault.org>,
        Atish Patra <atishp@atishpatra.org>,
        Andrew Jones <ajones@ventanamicro.com>,
        linux-riscv@lists.infradead.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        kvm@vger.kernel.org, kvm-riscv@lists.infradead.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 01/13] riscv: fix jal offsets in patched alternatives
Date:   Tue, 06 Dec 2022 01:39:50 +0100
Message-ID: <12207576.O9o76ZdvQC@diego>
In-Reply-To: <Y45LRu0Gvrurm5Rh@spud>
References: <20221204174632.3677-1-jszhang@kernel.org> <10190559.nUPlyArG6x@diego> <Y45LRu0Gvrurm5Rh@spud>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8BIT
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Precedence: bulk

Am Montag, 5. Dezember 2022, 20:49:26 CET schrieb Conor Dooley:
> On Mon, Dec 05, 2022 at 07:49:01PM +0100, Heiko St?bner 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?

yeah, I had that same thought over the weekend - with the generic
part being pretty good in the review and only the string part needing
more work and thus ideally splitting the series [0] .

Jisheng's series just made that even more important to do :-)


Heiko