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 A799AC43458 for ; Fri, 26 Jun 2026 15:28:56 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost ([::1] helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists1p.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1wd8Td-0002FI-U2; Fri, 26 Jun 2026 11:28:21 -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 1wd8TR-00029p-Pl for qemu-riscv@nongnu.org; Fri, 26 Jun 2026 11:28:10 -0400 Received: from mx0a-0031df01.pphosted.com ([205.220.168.131]) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1wd8TP-0001SI-G2 for qemu-riscv@nongnu.org; Fri, 26 Jun 2026 11:28:09 -0400 Received: from pps.filterd (m0279864.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by mx0a-0031df01.pphosted.com (8.18.1.11/8.18.1.11) with ESMTP id 65QF3qei1086794 for ; Fri, 26 Jun 2026 15:28:05 GMT DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=qualcomm.com; h= cc:content-transfer-encoding:content-type:date:from:in-reply-to :message-id:mime-version:references:subject:to; s=qcppdkim1; bh= AVaqti0KHdXH0np9lbq88qwHwi3tR+h1fIA48WixgBg=; b=gwCxZm5/YXWt9tvE Z/tV8+ByHgQZYy/Qb8/ilEu6bwT7DVxD7ncswWEoJWNRr2ptSM8570Aml00DdNzD BBb9Q+mdbrBp4SAYpt8gVBKT2+ZEq91ymPrQJP7BjQiEAgp94O/U8NphmejDpPKH 12VGAVfXjQ4FdqvQdEBLut6Ws4FyquptGDPrWW4i78ILexEGwyxXlfKoPs+BC2nw Q8MLJW/iaeHU8JMwh2rtVgN81ZMjrc/hLDk4xvGZsa+pCx6F2VDD56M4uiFjHaFF Fe4K9Ui8JtsDYLYeKMvNn9rPv3iUt/B6cQJWXNt54xxV1BgSfw38I98b9cxaBL7r NbF0Xw== Received: from mail-dl1-f69.google.com (mail-dl1-f69.google.com [74.125.82.69]) by mx0a-0031df01.pphosted.com (PPS) with ESMTPS id 4f1j1njkb2-1 (version=TLSv1.3 cipher=TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 bits=128 verify=NOT) for ; Fri, 26 Jun 2026 15:28:05 +0000 (GMT) Received: by mail-dl1-f69.google.com with SMTP id a92af1059eb24-137fc6f8e9fso841192c88.1 for ; Fri, 26 Jun 2026 08:28:05 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=oss.qualcomm.com; s=google; t=1782487685; x=1783092485; darn=nongnu.org; h=content-transfer-encoding:in-reply-to:content-language:from :references:cc:to:subject:user-agent:mime-version:date:message-id :from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=AVaqti0KHdXH0np9lbq88qwHwi3tR+h1fIA48WixgBg=; b=X94QmM51DmxmFfMDT9NqpQOn6zq0g0uhxmvFdOyApzhHezcyEmQq2sxo/WugZ2Sblj 9KRr/FUf3mrKLsGxIgC6eJ6V9gQFyOPcW/+A/bxDlFD2ZgZuyltRhAdynEzVFnCRDAr2 3O7cFNM0am/bYdMehwEIb/1TwBKKo2IFXqXtH/x4QFRfCZDRjd2qHtXiWJ2R4LHmddZS 5WVnAFX05WuYBdvuPtlNhCZgdasWoaVGoumPAx/kE7YcZxoFJmvSEE5oHpJPv/i/aC5D 65z66cgjXxYVEQyUnNNMyQ0gqyB0fQrqukz117aPsp2AlKAZFhOh77kbQAn5vH/rddmj 4Kxg== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20251104; t=1782487685; x=1783092485; h=content-transfer-encoding:in-reply-to:content-language:from :references:cc:to:subject:user-agent:mime-version:date:message-id :x-gm-gg:x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id :reply-to; bh=AVaqti0KHdXH0np9lbq88qwHwi3tR+h1fIA48WixgBg=; b=QDiwz5bbXNue5THpv69hZRvApeqpO+k8MuhT3zkCj/KEjjDXVWQQ80FsS8yX6dVmgh /9cjPmO0GbAfW/1aM0N8ajRUeYwQLfADazYN5YQGxYTkgx7wLr+Txt06tAJOA5Rds9Be FudKYNr7LQuKLLRcpYUnF5xgey+6pLrKnmIqzthoV6qNUTlBPgCNa3FGrUhZ8Nkmybv6 ymHKdfFt0geZ3jUrOHVyssRuVpqVpHqUrmaKLqpuopvMulnotgqD0OkBV7mi2AXQL5We mTWexADSioJVIqOEqKX1TCHOMYR3OiB/5I2lyaZcUQViOTwqvIqdD2mEAGiRtqbSbkVi 1dJg== X-Forwarded-Encrypted: i=1; AFNElJ/mlEpq3///g+guVXvzhHxai98jisygjsGQdL6dBYM6MNXYJc+Jc4d0H+ieKHkDPABXScqCp7FRzRTk@nongnu.org X-Gm-Message-State: AOJu0YzFkJy61N/yKjPY5yslOLUmF7YltCuBuk8z7NwUkC+3E3svAew/ xztySqU8MFPwdE8PayOLt2TQoHCwmyd8AwrMAJoN0SfDgKVPtqK9hU8yg9RVG6BayYtIuuT6FQm 69+LmKlih5eYPxf9iYP6J2nLwHE7u1l26UEjgqUErRWWhsEFOwT42+vz0sA== X-Gm-Gg: AfdE7ckZasHNHowcGOA2DU6FUzogfb9m2SprFmFTgc7lk4vIZfLAgxnakFFhq/wO87X tjTd1pbJb6a3zgqUgFQSLc8Rtkk/yaZIb3ge8lKytG9QHmXvvysFjSNqCxlh4HRymOTwhbmKrG7 0pIzNfuHTc2oLHRNVYQ55t4sz2WRyUukaZCw9WGaC/C6HfhbqAhXsEPgq/UzevUTrh+aUoAgD49 xm7EN8cx0qf/EUjM6tyKiIPnYJRX56p6Qsf9E/enmDISTYx/VkBfkVd6m5+7KyWdeD857lETPgl iEEeifCxoa2KtpP8AgK+l8fXN46Fv9GLr3rE2QExYhurhvQWHz0NFTnjUcSk1upo3hv2BZ88rX3 Av7SEQxVYpe0Cusq18MJYUhLJITXDAIwldPcBA8Rz5+oReSoj2kexHAoMuZawABRHl3JtkBtrVr +2mgA= X-Received: by 2002:a05:7022:ec83:b0:138:51c:c5aa with SMTP id a92af1059eb24-139dbae338bmr5252422c88.27.1782487684734; Fri, 26 Jun 2026 08:28:04 -0700 (PDT) X-Received: by 2002:a05:7022:ec83:b0:138:51c:c5aa with SMTP id a92af1059eb24-139dbae338bmr5252405c88.27.1782487684074; Fri, 26 Jun 2026 08:28:04 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [192.168.1.170] (216-71-219-44.dyn.novuscom.net. [216.71.219.44]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id a92af1059eb24-139e4c33af7sm6143851c88.5.2026.06.26.08.28.02 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 bits=128/128); Fri, 26 Jun 2026 08:28:03 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: Date: Fri, 26 Jun 2026 08:28:01 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Subject: Re: [PATCH 00/24] target/riscv: move TCG files and fix --disable-tcg To: Alistair Francis Cc: Daniel Henrique Barboza , Peter Maydell , =?UTF-8?Q?Philippe_Mathieu-Daud=C3=A9?= , qemu-devel@nongnu.org, qemu-riscv@nongnu.org, alistair.francis@wdc.com, liwei1518@gmail.com, zhiwei_liu@linux.alibaba.com, chao.liu.zevorn@gmail.com References: <20260622193141.1449724-1-daniel.barboza@oss.qualcomm.com> <52c3605c-345f-43d2-8cc6-794980c805fa@oss.qualcomm.com> <50ce1e98-2c1f-4cbd-b191-1eac324b71b6@oss.qualcomm.com> <704cfba3-e92a-498d-928b-877f7f7641fe@oss.qualcomm.com> <9d2737e3-34f0-4f68-813b-37059615bced@oss.qualcomm.com> <0f2205d0-06b5-40ad-9952-e18a6a951078@oss.qualcomm.com> From: Pierrick Bouvier Content-Language: en-US In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Proofpoint-GUID: s2s0YPCecfCv63GgRjiZGznlqNPEZ0Zh X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details-Enc: AW1haW4tMjYwNjI2MDEyOCBTYWx0ZWRfX9fzJfU7e7T6C J7IRP1koOmE9k21QqrSm/GqoXqed6whqVRgD1gfhlGVDGmHlgkJvF2IJurCdLeATJkJ7OfyN24+ MRXWpECvtGeqrL2C+qnbju8ORp+uqvmD1RYx4yehcgU7dxHbnBRgIATyKPOBZDihGd1YnIazp4j QSn6VanMd1rIA5uUQs5cCRGlOLVJF108jDkI8nEA4TINL3Df1RrTf1j9YK75z+zK3vkpAQBwAbk V6QbgFLtgcnJH0/H42jii56pLijU0ZpSfvCg7ACUCACS58ofx2F4/XF6pdHgwF7NtqNhCEYhcNc z5xx/abFvVKAEQ5PDGkVUJtglxBUwhHrz2YnRja+m2oi0jOd6l3HGSFLnX2PCsGGvtCJTWvX8b5 vucBgrZj9gleCfzfXU9UYnxhOcyQx/+wzxm7mrF+LZpmgwNtccp+aUYsBik0XxD9o9xKiFENuHi WAag3lzvWGwr2hooUTw== X-Authority-Analysis: v=2.4 cv=W+cIkxWk c=1 sm=1 tr=0 ts=6a3e9a85 cx=c_pps a=kVLUcbK0zfr7ocalXnG1qA==:117 a=iLqgmErQAxjCjdq5jj1Aqg==:17 a=IkcTkHD0fZMA:10 a=FelO9ux0wxsA:10 a=s4-Qcg_JpJYA:10 a=VkNPw1HP01LnGYTKEx00:22 a=u7WPNUs3qKkmUXheDGA7:22 a=DJpcGTmdVt4CTyJn9g5Z:22 a=NEAV23lmAAAA:8 a=p0WdMEafAAAA:8 a=EUspDBNiAAAA:8 a=5sm5QLcBCla-CBgxaecA:9 a=3ZKOabzyN94A:10 a=QEXdDO2ut3YA:10 a=vr4QvYf-bLy2KjpDp97w:22 X-Proofpoint-Spam-Info: AW1haW4tMjYwNjI2MDEyOCBTYWx0ZWRfX49sjhCDOCklZ 1PygXt52x0Cwmwr1EabDTp+CO8W3UAgJbgSqrGnxfwDquGWYlaqxSihgjmIk6Hw3rCZ6DQv9PBs guAqaiW/URiHUgSDmv6Q1NcfLYNQRDU= X-Proofpoint-ORIG-GUID: s2s0YPCecfCv63GgRjiZGznlqNPEZ0Zh X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=baseguard engine=ICAP:2.0.293,Aquarius:18.0.1143,Hydra:6.1.125,FMLib:17.12.100.49 definitions=2026-06-26_03,2026-06-26_01,2025-10-01_01 X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=outbound_notspam policy=outbound score=0 clxscore=1015 impostorscore=0 malwarescore=0 priorityscore=1501 spamscore=0 bulkscore=0 phishscore=0 lowpriorityscore=0 adultscore=0 suspectscore=0 classifier=typeunknown authscore=0 authtc= authcc= route=outbound adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=8.22.0-2606150000 definitions=main-2606260128 Received-SPF: pass client-ip=205.220.168.131; envelope-from=pierrick.bouvier@oss.qualcomm.com; helo=mx0a-0031df01.pphosted.com X-Spam_score_int: -27 X-Spam_score: -2.8 X-Spam_bar: -- X-Spam_report: (-2.8 / 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, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001 autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no X-Spam_action: no action X-BeenThere: qemu-riscv@nongnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: qemu-riscv-bounces+qemu-riscv=archiver.kernel.org@nongnu.org Sender: qemu-riscv-bounces+qemu-riscv=archiver.kernel.org@nongnu.org On 6/25/2026 6:41 PM, Alistair Francis wrote: > On Wed, Jun 24, 2026 at 5:18 AM Pierrick Bouvier > wrote: >> >> On 6/23/2026 12:01 PM, Daniel Henrique Barboza wrote: >>> >>> >>> On 6/23/2026 1:10 PM, Pierrick Bouvier wrote: >>>> On 6/23/2026 4:38 AM, Daniel Henrique Barboza wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On 6/23/2026 6:58 AM, Peter Maydell wrote: >>>>>> On Tue, 23 Jun 2026 at 10:49, Daniel Henrique Barboza >>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On 6/22/2026 6:34 PM, Pierrick Bouvier wrote: >>>>>>>> On 6/22/2026 2:23 PM, Philippe Mathieu-Daudé wrote: >>>>>>>>> On 22/6/26 22:52, Pierrick Bouvier wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On 6/22/2026 12:31 PM, Daniel Henrique Barboza wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> Hello, >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> This series looks scary but it's mostly trivial and mechanical >>>>>>>>>>> work. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> It is yet another attempt at fixing --disable-tcg. We have a >>>>>>>>>>> recent >>>>>>>>>>> work sent to the ML [1] and we had Phil's attempt back in 2023 >>>>>>>>>>> [2]. >>>>>>>>>>> Phil's work didn't get merged and it's now too hard to rebase and >>>>>>>>>>> revive, the most recent attempt got misled into the 'what is >>>>>>>>>>> common code >>>>>>>>>>> between TCG and KVM' dungeon. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> It seems like series does not apply on top of master, would that be >>>>>>>>>> possible to rebase it? >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> For some reason the RISC-V series are handled distinctly than the >>>>>>>>> rest of QEMU, Alistair queues work on his repository and developers >>>>>>>>> are custome to base their series on top of it (otherwise Alistair >>>>>>>>> can not apply them on his tree and asks for reposts), see the >>>>>>>>> riscv-to-apply.next branch on https://github.com/alistair23/qemu. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Unfortunately, it makes it hard to run any kind of automated testing, >>>>>>>> especially for series like this that target specific configs. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Don't we have ways of saying in the commit message "these patches >>>>>>> applies >>>>>>> on top of these other patches" and then the tooling would deal with >>>>>>> it? >>>>>>> I remember patchew doing stuff like that with that "Based-on: >>>>>>> " >>>>>>> tag. >>>>>> >>>>>> Yes, Based-on: is our convention for marking "this patchset needs some >>>>>> other one to be applied first". But that should be the exception rather >>>>>> than a common case -- if patchsets regularly need to be based on >>>>>> something other than head-of-git, this is I think a sign that >>>>>> maintainers are not sending out pull requests frequently enough. >>>>>> >>>>>> I would prefer it if QEMU didn't develop kernel-style "subsystems >>>>>> have their own particular workflows" fragmentation -- I don't >>>>>> think we're big enough or that sub-parts of QEMU are sufficiently >>>>>> well separated for it to work out well. >>>>> >>>>> I agree that rebasing things on master is better than rebasing it on the >>>>> maintainer's tree. And we could make a better job at informing >>>>> developers that >>>>> submitting a patch for qemu-riscv, vfio or any particular subtree, means >>>>> that >>>>> the patch should be based on a maintainer tree X. >>>>> >>>>> The thing is that sending patches on master only works if master is >>>>> always up >>>>> to date, and that's not feasible with our current style of merging PRs. >>>>> This >>>>> series we're commenting on is an example: it doesn't apply to master >>>>> because >>>>> there are pre-approved RISC-V patches in the maintainer's tree from 2 >>>>> days ago >>>>> (also my patches, I might add) that caused conflicts that I wasn't aware >>>>> that >>>>> would happen. This conflict would have to be dealt with at some point >>>>> by myself >>>>> or the maintainer, and it's not like 2 days is too much time without >>>>> a PR. >>>>> >>>>> We can argue "this is an exception that doesn't happen that often, we >>>>> should >>>>> stick with using master as a base", and to a certain extend that's >>>>> true. But >>>>> then this sort of conflict happens again, then again, then again, it >>>>> comes to >>>>> a point where it's easier to tell developers to use the maintainer's >>>>> tree instead >>>>> of master. >>>>> >>>>> Maybe I'm downplaying the problem because I've been sending stuff based >>>>> on the >>>>> maintainer's tree since forever and got used to it. IMO, unless we >>>>> decide to be >>>>> like libvirt and create the "committer" role to allow trustworthy devs >>>>> to push >>>>> stuff to master after acks, making it more feasible to expect master to >>>>> be up to >>>>> date, I'm afraid we're closer to a kernel-style workflow. For better or >>>>> worse. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Thanks, >>>>> Daniel >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> thanks >>>>>> -- PMM >>>>> >>>> >>>> In this very specific case, where base patches are needed, maybe it >>>> would be better to make the required commits appear in this series, and >>>> mention in cover letter that patches 1-N are just coming from another >>>> series and are already reviewed/approved. IMHO it doesn't hurt, and >>>> reviewers are free to skip commits already reviewed. >>> >>> That's fair enough but I wonder if that won't scare people away with >>> even bigger series :D in this case here I would need to either send all >>> the queued patches, making the series go to 40+, or I would need to triage >>> which patches from the queue creates a conflict with this work and send >>> only those. >>> >>> Now, as for qemu-ci ... How farfetched it is to make it read a specific >>> tag >>> in the cover-letter, e.g. "branch-id", that can point to a gitlab/github >>> repo with the patches, and use that code base instead of applying the >>> patches to the master branch? Then for the next version of this work >>> I could do >>> >>> "branch-id: https://gitlab.com/danielhb/qemu/-/tree/riscv_disabletcg_v2" >>> >> >> Based-on: is a QEMU specific tag, that is only understood by patchew, >> and no other tool to my knowledge. >> b4 has base_commit, which allows to give a specific base, but not a >> specific repository. I'm not aware of any b4 tag that allows to mention >> a base series. It makes sense, series are not branches, and stacking >> them comes with a lot of problems. >> >> So it seems like email workflow is quite limited in this regard, and the >> only way to deal with it properly is to wait for base patches to be >> merged, or include them in the series. >> >> From another perspective, the same problem would exist if we would use a >> forge like GitHub or GitLab. It's not possible to stack PR on top of >> others, and only solution is to wait, or duplicate patches. IMHO, it's a >> sane default, as it forces correct ordering instead of allowing chaotic >> development. >> >>> and the tool would still work. If there's no "branch-id" then it assumes >>> that the patches are to be applied on master. >>> >>> >>> And yeah, in an ideal world the problem goes away if we just do more PRs >>> and >>> strive to keep 'master' updated. I'm just thinking out loud about possible >>> alternatives until we reach that point. > > When you sent v2 of this series it had been one week since the last > RISC-V PR. Are we really aiming for more than one PR a week? > >>> >>> >>> Cheers, >>> Daniel >>> >>>> >>>> Or, a solution I'm not fond of but I ended up adopting most of the time, >>>> just wait for required patches to be merged on master before posting the >>>> series, and work on something else meanwhile. > > I do feel that a few people do that, just not Daniel :) > Waiting works well if you know the wait period is deterministic. "Ok, I missed this train, let me catch the one next week". Unfortunately, it varies per maintainer, and some are even stochastic processes on their own. I can't blame people who submit and are not maintainer to feel frustration with this, it's a real issue. > Alistair > >>>> >>>> Ideally, yes, it would be better if maintainers could send PR more >>>> frequently to avoid creating those intermediate staging trees. The >>>> faster we merge, the less conflicts we'll have. >>>> >>>> Regards, >>>> Pierrick >>> >> >>