From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org Received: from lists1p.gnu.org (lists1p.gnu.org [209.51.188.17]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 856E4CD342C for ; Wed, 6 May 2026 07:44:46 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost ([::1] helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists1p.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1wKWvB-0000QL-3I; Wed, 06 May 2026 03:43:53 -0400 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]) by lists1p.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1wKWv9-0000Q2-19 for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 06 May 2026 03:43:51 -0400 Received: from mail-qk1-x742.google.com ([2607:f8b0:4864:20::742]) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_128_GCM_SHA256:128) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1wKWv7-00052S-7O for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 06 May 2026 03:43:50 -0400 Received: by mail-qk1-x742.google.com with SMTP id af79cd13be357-8c70b5594f4so76865785a.1 for ; Wed, 06 May 2026 00:43:48 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20251104; t=1778053427; x=1778658227; darn=nongnu.org; h=in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition :mime-version:references:message-id:subject:cc:to:from:date:from:to :cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=7IgINgqhvcKXkDLzUwnKNApzrzTavNit7ECvB7toQsQ=; b=EUKLutl+JEECXcrBEfBG70ISrGxd7sBEs93CjKkUGwSGt0sBGNOeI4dVqWL0CqFBv7 uZKS+eQbFl+GrIzqzuxMZCKG5M4cJzd14//MHa/x1zHQFBd9sYBwmkktef9bYpzt1a1L khnL1UpWWZiWc3SPgbuoTl9RZTwHilIewfUWNDDz1h4FczC4ZXizkhu7+/EP9+cXl3rh N6QRquiYxIf7X1ag0zfa5dihLOgs/6/pCYqaY5fZqGIXC3aG7LzbX2VHR7nzBnJBg+VD IKvAiu3zILWS6/+l9XtyuM7O8vqkqPuYEMtcemMtWDJKiEG4Kor7BTIcydIupXYbZE9/ yDSg== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20251104; t=1778053427; x=1778658227; h=in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition :mime-version:references:message-id:subject:cc:to:from:date:x-gm-gg :x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=7IgINgqhvcKXkDLzUwnKNApzrzTavNit7ECvB7toQsQ=; b=BHIefL0I6ihSkeYmELOUddjrutzHUOFBAERtjCUrDq1AQnWPhGasWzxnbB4jLry2qV Zl97kcLfXEQG7Mf2F1LD/CXpTcusnlPxXPwBdx6+g5VUXfFpbkM8difHVzB6uxj7ZIGg Ke0pF0qIFoH7wiEkoa9KVCHIu6M7ZhkIFkywiDmoZEXPGJN4IgWlwySSU/GPiO8lMJCI f9ZOSxDV2fm1FOaM8kRSGrWLvQGXuC19FF33ZDrSJQRUvyMFLn07bYdyJ8OuZ9L+jWjB /BHus0rfZD3WJxTkuXvNZse15Ko11SFH7w2WSvNGxc7vnGbcxbpv2khmIvDCha1nrzMd ILUQ== X-Forwarded-Encrypted: i=1; AFNElJ/+OpK2/lr6cWIru2a86mblCGrXvMPEGbXpXfCqehRq7YjtvvK0cJ3p31DUFxp/P0AljJOTtoawlL26@nongnu.org X-Gm-Message-State: AOJu0YyeYVDmQ/m+yHyJjxjPppbhG2Qm5P2c2lN8wKcok1tio9vEdYI6 9+lCEVEIHkiJeWl6eh4AlVJmnLJCWmiXF00ILhH0hOWI5qdsJz1U96CM X-Gm-Gg: AeBDiev4rJkXy9F+tcN/A11WuxoO3WX0PQrlKe9aKYqzAPvFfx+7BY+S1m698G4THSf Xvt5r7XfPTdnMWVpdXiPvtlgx434d9d5jxbzxPn6Ix8ilspcPBteHGnAQD+tlE4ABudlUIgUEji 2E67Oig6gpQQh8X4XPLWrYtarbaMv3k4hRKtbnT5wRVgBrhAo30f5wFfLi5ks5tnw7oWhF1F5aR UhnfHZwgU1dwNzsOakQRpH0pdEXWAoHYns+4/2v9RyrkP6/fh8HenuSpSJEK2C94JgHXh9stK/i tlL4JXYORiETiLprvelvNtR+a2gauJheSYZQxFVyfJRq12yYOv9YdnJVPCWit6eB9XYJwh0oSxe I26UOMgmwqwvfq79CzryCDB5gLLC5ZgCijjevz+79aR0rpxyr/Pxsl5N/Kw+cOTrYQja97CVuKW j8HSQowXQwM7m45jyoGaklIvATI8pdJM047AIaj8iaJegj+V7p0xeUF0B/MC0JrO65zbB/+3+Ra HpwVOKhWIU= X-Received: by 2002:a05:620a:2886:b0:8da:4c20:50f0 with SMTP id af79cd13be357-902e2941fa9mr945397685a.8.1778053427106; Wed, 06 May 2026 00:43:47 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ZEVORN-PC.localdomain ([162.244.208.119]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id af79cd13be357-8fc2667d5cesm1499234385a.0.2026.05.06.00.43.40 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256/256); Wed, 06 May 2026 00:43:46 -0700 (PDT) Date: Wed, 6 May 2026 15:43:29 +0800 From: Chao Liu To: Alistair Francis Cc: Pierrick Bouvier , Palmer Dabbelt , Alistair Francis , Weiwei Li , Daniel Henrique Barboza , Liu Zhiwei , Paolo Bonzini , Christoph Muellner , Fabiano Rosas , Laurent Vivier , qemu-devel@nongnu.org, qemu-riscv@nongnu.org, Chao Liu , Daniel Henrique Barboza , Conor Dooley , Peng Jiang <3160104094@zju.edu.cn> Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 1/5] target/riscv: add thead-c908 cpu support Message-ID: References: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit In-Reply-To: Received-SPF: pass client-ip=2607:f8b0:4864:20::742; envelope-from=chao.liu.zevorn@gmail.com; helo=mail-qk1-x742.google.com X-Spam_score_int: -20 X-Spam_score: -2.1 X-Spam_bar: -- X-Spam_report: (-2.1 / 5.0 requ) BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no X-Spam_action: no action X-BeenThere: qemu-devel@nongnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: qemu development List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: qemu-devel-bounces+qemu-devel=archiver.kernel.org@nongnu.org Sender: qemu-devel-bounces+qemu-devel=archiver.kernel.org@nongnu.org On Fri, May 01, 2026 at 02:02:04PM +1000, Alistair Francis wrote: > On Mon, Apr 20, 2026 at 1:38 PM Chao Liu wrote: > > > > On Mon, Apr 20, 2026 at 09:49:50AM +1000, Alistair Francis wrote: > > > On Sat, Apr 18, 2026 at 1:13 AM Chao Liu wrote: > > > > > > > > From: Chao Liu > > > > > > > > The C908 processor is based on the RV64GCB[V] instruction > > > > set, compatible to RVA22 Profile and implements the XIE > > > > (XuanTie Instruction Extension) technology. > > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Chao Liu > > > > Suggested-by: LIU Zhiwei > > > > Reviewed-by: Daniel Henrique Barboza > > > > Reviewed-by: Conor Dooley > > > > > > As Connor pointed out, he didn't add his Reviewed-by, instead he > > > commented about a missing extension [1]. On top of that I don't see > > > any instances of `Reviewed-by: Conor Dooley ` in the > > > QEMU tree, so I assume there are none on the mailing list as well. > > > Which makes a copy and paste error seem less likely. > > > > > > I do see that Connor's reply was sent from his conor@kernel.org address, > > > but manually stitching together a `Reviewed-by` and address seems > > > unlikely to happen by accident. Although it does seem like the type of > > > thing an LLM would do (see below). > > > > > Sorry, when I first started contributing to QEMU, I wasn't familiar with > > mailing list conventions. I had been under the impression that whenever a > > reviewer left comments, it was appropriate to carry a Reviewed-by tag into > > the next revision. No one pointed this out at the time, but that was > > clearly my oversight. My apologies to Alistair and Conor for the trouble > > caused. > > In future, only add tags that people specify. Please copy them > directly or use b4, patchew or a similar tool to apply the tags. Thanks for the review, way batter than manually tagging people :) > > > > > I made the same mistake on earlier patches as well: > > > > https://lore.kernel.org/qemu-devel/8b29b86a9af84edba54cc53aec017224478312bf.1745894489.git.lc00631@tecorigin.com/ > > https://lore.kernel.org/qemu-devel/501e578a4ef28515ccdefcbc82defc04363855ca.1746001489.git.lc00631@tecorigin.com/ > > > > There is also a slightly different case where I added a Reviewed-by tag: > > > > https://lore.kernel.org/qemu-devel/07a97219e3f7e342c668d6772acc4c0a8eb4d4f3.1744709888.git.lc00631@tecorigin.com/ > > > > There the R-b came from an internal colleague who reviewed the patch on > > our side before it was sent upstream. > > > > Is that also against community convention? > > No, internal colleagues are ok. Generally they provide little insight > though. Your colleague would be better off engaging with the community > as then the comments can be seen by everyone, that helps build trust > between developers. > You're right, we'll move more internal discussions to community channels, so other developers can stay informed. > > > > > > Reported-by: Peng Jiang <3160104094@zju.edu.cn> > > > > > > I'm not sure how this can be Reported-by, it's not a bug fix. What was > > > reported? It seems like the Reported-by appeared in v3 [2] and wasn't > > > in v2 [3], yet I don't see anything reported. > > > > > This patchset is the project-phase output of a non-profit QEMU open-source > > training camp we run in China; so far the camp has trained about 2000 > > participants. Peng Jiang is one of the members, and his task was bringing > > up OpenSBI/RustSBI + Linux on the QEMU k230 board. For the specific > > details, see: > > > > https://github.com/rustsbi/rustsbi/issues/160 > > > > The Reported-by in v3 was added as a form of encouragement, since he > > found several bugs during that bring-up work. > > A Signed-off-by or Tested-by would probably be more appropriate then. > Reported-by indicates that they found and reported a bug > Peng Jiang tested the patchset, so Tested-by fits better. I will fix it in the next version. > > > > Given this situation, should I also drop Peng Jiang's Reported-by tag? > > > > After the camp concluded, I asked him to report any further issues to the > > upstream list directly himself — for example in v4: > > > > https://lore.kernel.org/qemu-devel/651b1d38.63ab7.19be50b4721.Coremail.3160104094@zju.edu.cn/ > > > > > The extra and unexplained `Reviewed-by` (especially using an odd > > > address as mentioned above) really points to this being LLM generated. > > > Especially considering that your reviews are LLM generated (those are > > > fine). Unfortunately that means I will need to decline the commits > > > according to the QEMU Code Provenance rules [4]. Note that it isn't > > > just the Code Provenance policy, it is also now really difficult to > > > trust these patches knowing that stray `Reviewed-by` tags could be > > > hallucinated and not caught before being submitted. > > > > > That said, I should clarify that no LLM assistance was used in developing > > this patchset. > > Ok, good to know :) > > > > > Finally, thanks to Alistair for the patient review. I'll be more careful > > about these details in future contributions to avoid adding review burden > > on maintainers/reviewers. > > Thank you > > Alistair