Re: [PATCH 5.4 00/94] 5.4.290-rc2 review

[Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>]

On Sat, Feb 01, 2025 at 07:03:33AM -0800, Guenter Roeck wrote:
> On 2/1/25 00:01, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> ...
> > Anyway, are you all really caring about riscv on a 5.4.y kernel?  Last I
> > checked, the riscv maintainers said not to even use that kernel for that
> > architecture.  Do you all have real boards that care about this kernel
> > tree that you are insisting on keeping alive?  Why not move them to a
> > newer LTS kernel?
> > 
> 
> Looking into the 5.4 release candidate, I see:
> 
> $ git log --oneline v5.4.289.. arch/riscv/
> 98d26e0254ff RISC-V: Don't enable all interrupts in trap_init()
> 574c5efceb70 riscv: prefix IRQ_ macro names with an RV_ namespace
> c57ffe372502 riscv: Fix sleeping in invalid context in die()
> 98c62ee8bc75 riscv: Avoid enabling interrupts in die()
> 88cb873873ff RISC-V: Avoid dereferening NULL regs in die()
> 2a83ad25311e riscv: remove unused handle_exception symbol
> 8652d51931cc riscv: abstract out CSR names for supervisor vs machine mode

I've dropped them all now, as that is what was causing the build
problems.

> Why do you backport riscv patches to 5.4.y if you think they should not be
> tested ? Shouldn't your question imply that there won't be any further
> backports into 5.4.y for architecture(s) which are no longer supported
> in that branch ?

I'm not implying they are not to be tested, it's just a real "is this
something that people actually care about" question.  Last time we had
riscv problems in this branch the riscv maintainers said "don't worry
about it".  I didn't notice that Sasha had queued these up here,
otherwise I would have probably just dropped them then like I did right
now :)

thanks,

greg k-h