Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-124247-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 147.75.199.223 as permitted sender) client-ip=147.75.199.223;
Date: Fri, 29 Mar 2024 07:27:57 +0000
From: Conor Dooley <conor.dooley@microchip.com>
To: Alexandre Ghiti <alexghiti@rivosinc.com>
CC: Conor Dooley <conor@kernel.org>, =?iso-8859-1?Q?Bj=F6rn_T=F6pel?=
	<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>,
	=?iso-8859-1?Q?Bj=F6rn_T=F6pel?= <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>
Subject: Re: RISC-V for-next/fixes (cont'd from PW sync)
Message-ID: <20240329-fanning-woven-7dbb6cfdde9b@wendy>
References: <87ttkro3b5.fsf@all.your.base.are.belong.to.us>
 <20240327-irrigate-unread-d9de28174437@spud>
 <CAHVXubgMTe83sYaNO+SG=90=k5scaQrpApveTCO163MhUc1tdA@mail.gmail.com>
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha256;
	protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="Y/2CbQmcronQVXbs"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <CAHVXubgMTe83sYaNO+SG=90=k5scaQrpApveTCO163MhUc1tdA@mail.gmail.com>

--Y/2CbQmcronQVXbs
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Fri, Mar 29, 2024 at 07:46:38AM +0100, Alexandre Ghiti wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 27, 2024 at 9:32=E2=80=AFPM Conor Dooley <conor@kernel.org> w=
rote:
> >
> > 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 typical=
ly
> > > 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.
>=20
> 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.

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

--Y/2CbQmcronQVXbs
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc"

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----

iHUEABYIAB0WIQRh246EGq/8RLhDjO14tDGHoIJi0gUCZgZtfQAKCRB4tDGHoIJi
0tiOAP4xrV2ls9KTOiepY1R3DQ4qiVounWXxYFc7g1IeQp60DQEA4pgF02ZVfCYK
LekKEkPD/qHka7u0tB7awW+UGsTp0gs=
=wq1B
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--Y/2CbQmcronQVXbs--