Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-124208-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 147.75.80.249 as permitted sender) client-ip=147.75.80.249;
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <87ttkro3b5.fsf@all.your.base.are.belong.to.us> <20240327-irrigate-unread-d9de28174437@spud>
In-Reply-To: <20240327-irrigate-unread-d9de28174437@spud>
From: Alexandre Ghiti <alexghiti@rivosinc.com>
Date: Fri, 29 Mar 2024 07:46:38 +0100
Message-ID: <CAHVXubgMTe83sYaNO+SG=90=k5scaQrpApveTCO163MhUc1tdA@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: RISC-V for-next/fixes (cont'd from PW sync)
To: Conor Dooley <conor@kernel.org>
Cc: =?UTF-8?B?QmrDtnJuIFTDtnBlbA==?= <bjorn@kernel.org>, 
	Paul Walmsley <paul.walmsley@sifive.com>, Palmer Dabbelt <palmer@dabbelt.com>, 
	Albert Ou <aou@eecs.berkeley.edu>, Emil Renner Berthing <kernel@esmil.dk>, 
	Samuel Holland <samuel.holland@sifive.com>, =?UTF-8?B?QmrDtnJuIFTDtnBlbA==?= <bjorn@rivosinc.com>, 
	linux-riscv@lists.infradead.org, Andy Chiu <andy.chiu@sifive.com>, 
	Jakub Kicinski <kuba@kernel.org>, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, netdev@vger.kernel.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Wed, Mar 27, 2024 at 9:32=E2=80=AFPM Conor Dooley <conor@kernel.org> wro=
te:
>
> On Wed, Mar 27, 2024 at 08:57:50PM +0100, Bj=C3=B6rn T=C3=B6pel 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.

[1] https://lore.kernel.org/linux-riscv/00000000000070a2660614b83885@google=
com/T/#t
[2] https://lore.kernel.org/all/20240326063036.6242-1-osalvador@suse.de/

> > 2. for-next does not have the fixes from RISC-V/rest of the kernel,
> >    and it's hard for contributors to test the work on for-next (buggy,
> >    no fixes, and sometime missing deps).
> >
> > I used to spend a whole lot of mine time in the netdev tree of the
> > kernel, and this is how they manage it (Thanks Kuba!):
> >
> > Netdev (here exchanged to RISC-V trees), fast-forward fixes, and then
> > cross-merge fixes into for-next -- for every -rc.
> >
> > E.g., say fixes is submitted for -rc2 to Linus, once he pulls, do:
> >
> >   git push --delete origin $SOMETAG
> >   git tag -d $SOMETAG
> >   git pull --ff-only --tags git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/g=
it/torvalds/linux.git
> >   build / test / push out.
> >
> > Then pull fixes into for-next:
> >
> >   git pull --tags git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/riscv/l=
inux.git fixes
> >
> >
> > Personally (obviously biased), I think this would be easier for
> > contributors. Any downsides from a RISC-V perspective?
>
> After you left, Palmer said he'd go for merging his fixes tag into
> for-next after they got merged by Linus. At least I think it was that,
> rather than Linus' -rcs...