linux-next: Fixes tag needs some work in the risc-v tree

linux-next: Fixes tag needs some work in the risc-v tree

[Stephen Rothwell]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 581 bytes --]

Hi all,

In commit

  4e27ce58e7fa ("riscv: uaccess: Only restore the CSR_STATUS SUM bit")

Fixes tag

  Fixes: 788aa64c0c01 ("riscv: save the SR_SUM status over switches")

has these problem(s):

  - Target SHA1 does not exist

Maybe you meant

Fixes: b0feecf5b812 ("riscv: save the SR_SUM status over switches")
Fixes: 788aa64c01f1 ("riscv: save the SR_SUM status over switches")
or
Fixes: 8f9b274ad153 ("riscv: save the SR_SUM status over switches")

(yes, they are all the same patch ... and all ancestors of 4e27ce58e7fa)
-- 
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell

[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 488 bytes --]

Re: linux-next: Fixes tag needs some work in the risc-v tree

[Palmer Dabbelt]

On Wed, 04 Jun 2025 23:35:13 PDT (-0700), Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> In commit
>
>   4e27ce58e7fa ("riscv: uaccess: Only restore the CSR_STATUS SUM bit")
>
> Fixes tag
>
>   Fixes: 788aa64c0c01 ("riscv: save the SR_SUM status over switches")
>
> has these problem(s):
>
>   - Target SHA1 does not exist
>
> Maybe you meant
>
> Fixes: b0feecf5b812 ("riscv: save the SR_SUM status over switches")
> Fixes: 788aa64c01f1 ("riscv: save the SR_SUM status over switches")
> or
> Fixes: 8f9b274ad153 ("riscv: save the SR_SUM status over switches")
>
> (yes, they are all the same patch ... and all ancestors of 4e27ce58e7fa)

Ya, thanks.  Something's gone way off the rails here, let me try to 
figure it out...

> -- 
> Cheers,
> Stephen Rothwell

Re: linux-next: Fixes tag needs some work in the risc-v tree

[Alexandre Ghiti]

On Thu, Jun 5, 2025 at 6:23 PM Palmer Dabbelt <palmer@dabbelt.com> wrote:
>
> On Wed, 04 Jun 2025 23:35:13 PDT (-0700), Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> > Hi all,
> >
> > In commit
> >
> >   4e27ce58e7fa ("riscv: uaccess: Only restore the CSR_STATUS SUM bit")
> >
> > Fixes tag
> >
> >   Fixes: 788aa64c0c01 ("riscv: save the SR_SUM status over switches")
> >
> > has these problem(s):
> >
> >   - Target SHA1 does not exist
> >
> > Maybe you meant
> >
> > Fixes: b0feecf5b812 ("riscv: save the SR_SUM status over switches")
> > Fixes: 788aa64c01f1 ("riscv: save the SR_SUM status over switches")
> > or
> > Fixes: 8f9b274ad153 ("riscv: save the SR_SUM status over switches")
> >
> > (yes, they are all the same patch ... and all ancestors of 4e27ce58e7fa)
>
> Ya, thanks.  Something's gone way off the rails here, let me try to
> figure it out...

I expected to send this fix (along with other fixes) next week, after
the -rc1 was released, with the proper fixes tag, so maybe Palmer you
can just drop it?

>
> > --
> > Cheers,
> > Stephen Rothwell

Re: linux-next: Fixes tag needs some work in the risc-v tree

[Palmer Dabbelt]

On Thu, 05 Jun 2025 10:08:15 PDT (-0700), alexghiti@rivosinc.com wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 5, 2025 at 6:23 PM Palmer Dabbelt <palmer@dabbelt.com> wrote:
>>
>> On Wed, 04 Jun 2025 23:35:13 PDT (-0700), Stephen Rothwell wrote:
>> > Hi all,
>> >
>> > In commit
>> >
>> >   4e27ce58e7fa ("riscv: uaccess: Only restore the CSR_STATUS SUM bit")
>> >
>> > Fixes tag
>> >
>> >   Fixes: 788aa64c0c01 ("riscv: save the SR_SUM status over switches")
>> >
>> > has these problem(s):
>> >
>> >   - Target SHA1 does not exist
>> >
>> > Maybe you meant
>> >
>> > Fixes: b0feecf5b812 ("riscv: save the SR_SUM status over switches")
>> > Fixes: 788aa64c01f1 ("riscv: save the SR_SUM status over switches")
>> > or
>> > Fixes: 8f9b274ad153 ("riscv: save the SR_SUM status over switches")
>> >
>> > (yes, they are all the same patch ... and all ancestors of 4e27ce58e7fa)
>>
>> Ya, thanks.  Something's gone way off the rails here, let me try to
>> figure it out...
>
> I expected to send this fix (along with other fixes) next week, after
> the -rc1 was released, with the proper fixes tag, so maybe Palmer you
> can just drop it?

The actual problem is that you've got some sort of rebasing going on, 
which is causing duplicate patches.  We just got lucky and this Fixes 
checked happened to stumble on it, but there's a bunch of these.

I'm going through and rebasing your PRs to try and get it cleaned up, 
but next week we should talk about some workflow stuff because something 
is wrong.

>
>>
>> > --
>> > Cheers,
>> > Stephen Rothwell

Re: linux-next: Fixes tag needs some work in the risc-v tree

[Palmer Dabbelt]

On Thu, 05 Jun 2025 12:30:41 PDT (-0700), Palmer Dabbelt wrote:
> On Thu, 05 Jun 2025 10:08:15 PDT (-0700), alexghiti@rivosinc.com wrote:
>> On Thu, Jun 5, 2025 at 6:23 PM Palmer Dabbelt <palmer@dabbelt.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> On Wed, 04 Jun 2025 23:35:13 PDT (-0700), Stephen Rothwell wrote:
>>> > Hi all,
>>> >
>>> > In commit
>>> >
>>> >   4e27ce58e7fa ("riscv: uaccess: Only restore the CSR_STATUS SUM bit")
>>> >
>>> > Fixes tag
>>> >
>>> >   Fixes: 788aa64c0c01 ("riscv: save the SR_SUM status over switches")
>>> >
>>> > has these problem(s):
>>> >
>>> >   - Target SHA1 does not exist
>>> >
>>> > Maybe you meant
>>> >
>>> > Fixes: b0feecf5b812 ("riscv: save the SR_SUM status over switches")
>>> > Fixes: 788aa64c01f1 ("riscv: save the SR_SUM status over switches")

I think that's the correct one now.  It's disturbingly close to the 
broken hash, though, and I've been staring at commit IDs for so long 
trying to figure out this rebase that I'm kind of losing my mind...

>>> > or
>>> > Fixes: 8f9b274ad153 ("riscv: save the SR_SUM status over switches")
>>> >
>>> > (yes, they are all the same patch ... and all ancestors of 4e27ce58e7fa)
>>>
>>> Ya, thanks.  Something's gone way off the rails here, let me try to
>>> figure it out...
>>
>> I expected to send this fix (along with other fixes) next week, after
>> the -rc1 was released, with the proper fixes tag, so maybe Palmer you
>> can just drop it?
>
> The actual problem is that you've got some sort of rebasing going on,
> which is causing duplicate patches.  We just got lucky and this Fixes
> checked happened to stumble on it, but there's a bunch of these.
>
> I'm going through and rebasing your PRs to try and get it cleaned up,
> but next week we should talk about some workflow stuff because something
> is wrong.
>
>>
>>>
>>> > --
>>> > Cheers,
>>> > Stephen Rothwell