On Mon, Dec 05, 2022 at 07:49:01PM +0100, Heiko Stübner 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 window > 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?
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
