From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from smtp.kernel.org (aws-us-west-2-korg-mail-1.web.codeaurora.org [10.30.226.201]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8A5F53BBC9; Fri, 29 Mar 2024 09:10:53 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=10.30.226.201 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1711703453; cv=none; b=baQcKNQHaQYvjZbl41zkbNXGvObO65wparssmJf9XZxSjcfRD08WqaoxQ5U6fWBtgSv7OzLtAGpS4MLybdVtJ3km8RHRWoo6Ab9mLAyzjYdyl45vgWALBnY6hJvfGiCe8AbKEKBfTXILeh2QdIwGBDu6UqCrAcrLFNN9szPzOfA= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1711703453; c=relaxed/simple; bh=vY/FJp6qrT1tKYNcxeFTW8hugbxrKmwQdnT/CQhbR5Q=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:Date:Message-ID: MIME-Version:Content-Type; b=EzVxlZCtF+mjD3SzmhwRGLk5J+h7T8eZoqMYiI/E4aPhPxDWSg7Vg3piEgMay6Z7K4GCouKh3a/RFd5VApIfyWtpuOOneGig0T+kikN6XDJu+UL/Cp1NtjBUDLnQEY1qVZbdU8Dqz4gi8fbEyrk8dQ5guAaeLvKnWcqm62cutyY= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.b=eaY/ZtZH; arc=none smtp.client-ip=10.30.226.201 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.b="eaY/ZtZH" Received: by smtp.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id D1C95C433F1; Fri, 29 Mar 2024 09:10:52 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=kernel.org; s=k20201202; t=1711703453; bh=vY/FJp6qrT1tKYNcxeFTW8hugbxrKmwQdnT/CQhbR5Q=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:Date:From; b=eaY/ZtZHjovhpyorRysQzrSvwlw75euFhSBKmnQXN4v3DgdaYp9046mnYet+XRpW3 UUrxLttZ7gI1jUpxEbQQjFNAiRz6I9nWbPkcba4rCc7sZG5DrddxBrsqU5WkVHSoOF nSACZAw+mLwl4P4zWoBvKykmU8ETj3EN/OamHwKM8/rmKw6gs3rAIdkvqAk9isEVr+ 1rzLlkIN3JNVSuxTuNBiyA6701F/jmtzQkGj8RkHqbbZY1jcZxV9i0erMg+H5FZ2jk gsu+08acrGMvte6ez3tsgZ6iH7cUMCz1cB/n86GRorzHlrV+l13H1HrjsYEC8GHTAx KLmHKeBN7f5oA== From: =?utf-8?B?QmrDtnJuIFTDtnBlbA==?= To: Conor Dooley , Alexandre Ghiti Cc: Conor Dooley , Paul Walmsley , Palmer Dabbelt , Albert Ou , Emil Renner Berthing , Samuel Holland , =?utf-8?B?QmrDtnJuIFTDtnBlbA==?= , linux-riscv@lists.infradead.org, Andy Chiu , Jakub Kicinski , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, netdev@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: RISC-V for-next/fixes (cont'd from PW sync) In-Reply-To: <20240329-fanning-woven-7dbb6cfdde9b@wendy> References: <87ttkro3b5.fsf@all.your.base.are.belong.to.us> <20240327-irrigate-unread-d9de28174437@spud> <20240329-fanning-woven-7dbb6cfdde9b@wendy> Date: Fri, 29 Mar 2024 10:10:49 +0100 Message-ID: <87sf09pfmu.fsf@all.your.base.are.belong.to.us> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: netdev@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Conor Dooley writes: > On Fri, Mar 29, 2024 at 07:46:38AM +0100, Alexandre Ghiti wrote: >> On Wed, Mar 27, 2024 at 9:32=E2=80=AFPM Conor Dooley = wrote: >> > >> > On Wed, Mar 27, 2024 at 08:57:50PM +0100, Bj=C3=B6rn T=C3=B6pel wrote: >> > > Hi, >> > > >> > > I figured I'd put some words on the "how to update the RISC-V >> > > for-next/fixes branches [1]" that came up on the patchwork call toda= y. >> > > >> > > In RISC-V land, the for-next branch is used for features, and typica= lly >> > > sent as a couple of PRs to Linus when the merge window is open. The >> > > fixes branch is sent as PR(s) between the RCs of a release. >> > > >> > > Today, the baseline for for-next/fixes is the CURRENT_RELEASE-rc1, a= nd >> > > features/fixes are based on that. >> > > >> > > This has IMO a couple of issues: >> > > >> > > 1. fixes is missing the non-RISC-V fixes from releases later than >> > > -rc1, which makes it harder for contributors. >>=20 >> The syzbot report [1] requires fixes in mm [2], if we don't update >> fixes on top of the latest -rcX, we'll keep hitting this bug, so >> rebasing -fixes on top of the latest -rcX is necessary to me. > > No non-ff rebasing of branches unless its 101% required, please. This > seems like a justifiable reason to merge the rc it appears in into the > riscv branches though. Are you talking past each other? I'm *not* saying rebase (agree with Conor!). I'm saying "let's move fixes up to the point to include the merge (and whatever on Linus' tip at the point of merge), i.e. *ff-only*. Now, rest your eyes on this fabulous cartoon: Linus' master | v o o <-- RISC-V fixes | | . . . . =20=20 Linus accepts the PR... =20=20 o <-- Merge tag 'riscv-for-linus-meh-rc7'... |\ o o <-- RISC-V fixes | | . . . . =20=20 and then move fixes, git merge --ff-only: =20=20 o <-- Merge tag 'riscv-for-linus-meh-rc7'..., RISC-V fixes |\ o o=20 | | . . . . Clearer? Bj=C3=B6rn