On Tue, Dec 06, 2022 at 01:39:50AM +0100, Heiko Stübner wrote: > Am Montag, 5. Dezember 2022, 20:49:26 CET schrieb Conor Dooley: > > 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 Thanks for the information, then we have more time to test and review this series. > > > > 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 Because alternative is the best solution to riscv extensions while still keep one unified kernel Image ;) > > 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? IMHO, it will be better if Palmer can merge Heiko's alternative improvements into riscv-next once well reviewed and the window is reopen. Then Drew, Prabhakar and I can rebase on that tree. > > 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 > >
