Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-124310-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 139.178.88.99 as permitted sender) client-ip=139.178.88.99;
From: =?utf-8?B?QmrDtnJuIFTDtnBlbA==?= <bjorn@kernel.org>
To: Conor Dooley <conor.dooley@microchip.com>, Alexandre Ghiti
 <alexghiti@rivosinc.com>
Cc: Conor Dooley <conor@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
Subject: Re: RISC-V for-next/fixes (cont'd from PW sync)
In-Reply-To: <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>
 <20240329-fanning-woven-7dbb6cfdde9b@wendy>
Date: Fri, 29 Mar 2024 10:10:49 +0100
Message-ID: <87sf09pfmu.fsf@all.your.base.are.belong.to.us>
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Conor Dooley <conor.dooley@microchip.com> writes:

> 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> =
wrote:
>> >
>> > 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 toda=
y.
>> > >
>> > > In RISC-V land, the for-next branch is used for features, and typica=
lly
>> > > 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, a=
nd
>> > > 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.

Are you talking past each other? I'm *not* saying rebase (agree with
Conor!). I'm saying "let's move fixes up to the point to include the
merge (and whatever on Linus' tip at the point of merge), i.e.
*ff-only*.

Now, rest your eyes on this fabulous cartoon:

  Linus' master
  |
  v
  o o <-- RISC-V fixes
  | |
  . .
  . .
=20=20
  Linus accepts the PR...
=20=20
  o <-- Merge tag 'riscv-for-linus-meh-rc7'...
  |\
  o o <-- RISC-V fixes
  | |
  . .
  . .
=20=20
  and then move fixes, git merge --ff-only:
=20=20
  o <-- Merge tag 'riscv-for-linus-meh-rc7'..., RISC-V fixes
  |\
  o o=20
  | |
  . .
  . .

Clearer?


Bj=C3=B6rn