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 bombadil.infradead.org (bombadil.infradead.org [198.137.202.133]) (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 23188C47089 for ; Tue, 6 Dec 2022 00:40:28 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=lists.infradead.org; s=bombadil.20210309; h=Sender: Content-Transfer-Encoding:Content-Type:List-Subscribe:List-Help:List-Post: List-Archive:List-Unsubscribe:List-Id:MIME-Version:References:In-Reply-To: Message-ID:Date:Subject:Cc:To:From:Reply-To:Content-ID:Content-Description: Resent-Date:Resent-From:Resent-Sender:Resent-To:Resent-Cc:Resent-Message-ID: List-Owner; bh=ZO57c3kh35MiuPSCybpuK5AzHMDnnB1txfUJKdMCS8w=; b=XI2JfdMh9leyj6 2ywjG/uQC10OVgy9+WexjcSFlBx9kXAfufuMSeFepspXcO5R2nIf9u9dG74S/si6RrLLr5xM+1QFv rktXB7mgCeETGE32lpW5+0lWGQ4oYTyaHcIT4EK5LRGxN1YdZ0DpO0Xi2veo1/BBBVIPirkQUeFMC 6N0rwrYMeWtxdv7RLORBJt8dja6kwsTVUdfPp9XULGu3mbuLQCUaP9VKoARtvJHTBVUsOaYGR0SfD 3EpvzXvgtScPTOqUyMKSeksEHeCATN+vAI2UCcswgl0nsJuKS9rATqglJoYfFWNefFA26q/gBTRtC 04OUs/1ELNYfk9SghK5A==; Received: from localhost ([::1] helo=bombadil.infradead.org) by bombadil.infradead.org with esmtp (Exim 4.94.2 #2 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1p2M0K-00E786-C0; Tue, 06 Dec 2022 00:40:12 +0000 Received: from gloria.sntech.de ([185.11.138.130]) by bombadil.infradead.org with esmtps (Exim 4.94.2 #2 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1p2M0G-00E6jD-TP; Tue, 06 Dec 2022 00:40:10 +0000 Received: from ip5b412258.dynamic.kabel-deutschland.de ([91.65.34.88] helo=diego.localnet) by gloria.sntech.de with esmtpsa (TLS1.3) tls TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (Exim 4.94.2) (envelope-from ) id 1p2Lzz-0007ay-NO; Tue, 06 Dec 2022 01:39:51 +0100 From: Heiko =?ISO-8859-1?Q?St=FCbner?= To: Conor Dooley Cc: Jisheng Zhang , Palmer Dabbelt , Paul Walmsley , Albert Ou , Anup Patel , Atish Patra , Andrew Jones , linux-riscv@lists.infradead.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, kvm@vger.kernel.org, kvm-riscv@lists.infradead.org Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 01/13] riscv: fix jal offsets in patched alternatives Date: Tue, 06 Dec 2022 01:39:50 +0100 Message-ID: <12207576.O9o76ZdvQC@diego> In-Reply-To: References: <20221204174632.3677-1-jszhang@kernel.org> <10190559.nUPlyArG6x@diego> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-CRM114-Version: 20100106-BlameMichelson ( TRE 0.8.0 (BSD) ) MR-646709E3 X-CRM114-CacheID: sfid-20221205_164008_973282_ABF89469 X-CRM114-Status: GOOD ( 34.68 ) X-BeenThere: linux-riscv@lists.infradead.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.34 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Sender: "linux-riscv" Errors-To: linux-riscv-bounces+linux-riscv=archiver.kernel.org@lists.infradead.org Am Montag, 5. Dezember 2022, 20:49:26 CET schrieb Conor Dooley: > On Mon, Dec 05, 2022 at 07:49:01PM +0100, Heiko St=FCbner wrote: > > Am Montag, 5. Dezember 2022, 19:36:45 CET schrieb Conor Dooley: > > > Heiko, Jisheng, > > > On Mon, Dec 05, 2022 at 11:40:44PM +0800, Jisheng Zhang wrote: > > > > Yesterday, I also wanted to unify the two instruction fix into > > > > one. But that would need to roll back the > > > > riscv_alternative_fix_auipc_jalr() to your v1 version. And IMHO, > > > > it's better if you can split the Zbb string optimizations series > > > > into two: one for alternative improvements, another for Zbb. Then > > > > we may get the alternative improvements and this inst extension > > > > series merged in v6.2-rc1. > > > = > > > Heiko, perhaps you can correct me here: > > > = > > > Last Wednesday you & Palmer agreed that it was too late in the cycle = to > > > apply any of the stuff touching alternatives? > > > If I do recall correctly, gives plenty of time to sort out any > > > interdependent changes here. > > > = > > > Could easily be misremembering, wouldn't be the first time! > > = > > You slightly misremembered, but are still correct with the above ;-) . > > = > > I.e. what we talked about was stuff for fixes for 6.1-rc, were Palmers > > wisely wanted to limit additions to really easy fixes for the remaining > > last rc, to not upset any existing boards. > = > Ahh right. I was 50-50 on whether something like that was said so at > least I am not going crazy. > = > > But you are still correct that we also shouldn't target the 6.2 merge w= indow > > anymore :-) . > > = > > We're after -rc8 now (which is in itself uncommon) and in his -rc7 > > announcement [0], Linus stated > > = > > "[...] the usual rule is that things that I get sent for the > > merge window should have been all ready _before_ the merge window > > opened. But with the merge window happening largely during the holiday > > season, I'll just be enforcing that pretty strictly." > = > Yah, of all the windows to land patchsets that are being re-spun a few > days before it opens this probably isn't the best one to pick! > = > > That means new stuff should be reviewed and in linux-next _way before_ = the > > merge window opens next weekend. Taking into account that people need > > to review stuff (and maybe the series needing another round), I really = don't > > see this happening this week and everything else will get us shouted at > > from atop a christmas tree ;-) . > > = > > That's the reason most maintainer-trees stop accepting stuff after -rc7 > = > Aye, in RISC-V land maybe we will get there one day :) > = > For the original question though, breaking them up into 3 or 4 smaller > bits that could get applied on their own is probably a good idea? > = > Between yourselves, Drew and Prabhakar there's a couple series touching > the same bits. Certainly don't want to seem like I am speaking for the > Higher Powers here, but some sort of logical ordering would probably be > a good idea so as not to hold each other up? > The non-string bit of your series has been fairly well reviewed & would, > in theory, be mergeable once the tree re-opens? Timing aside, Jisheng's > idea seems like a good one, no? yeah, I had that same thought over the weekend - with the generic part being pretty good in the review and only the string part needing more work and thus ideally splitting the series [0] . Jisheng's series just made that even more important to do :-) Heiko _______________________________________________ linux-riscv mailing list linux-riscv@lists.infradead.org http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-riscv