From: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation•org>
To: Paul Walmsley <pjw@kernel•org>
Cc: Stephen Rothwell <sfr@canb•auug.org.au>,
Palmer Dabbelt <palmer@dabbelt•com>,
david@redhat•com, Paul Walmsley <paul@pwsan•com>,
Chunyan Zhang <zhangchunyan@iscas•ac.cn>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger•kernel.org>,
Linux Next Mailing List <linux-next@vger•kernel.org>,
Xu Lu <luxu.kernel@bytedance•com>
Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the risc-v tree with the mm-unstable tree
Date: Tue, 25 Nov 2025 09:40:27 -0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20251125094027.62b358b4ba98e599a366eb3b@linux-foundation.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <deb9f5c1-87fd-9a1f-6277-93d63829bcf5@kernel.org>
On Tue, 25 Nov 2025 02:12:26 -0700 (MST) Paul Walmsley <pjw@kernel•org> wrote:
> Hi Andrew,
>
> On Mon, 24 Nov 2025, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
>
> > Today's linux-next merge of the risc-v tree got a conflict in:
> >
> > arch/riscv/include/asm/hwcap.h
> >
> > between commit:
> >
> > a2fb99195ca8 ("riscv: add RISC-V Svrsw60t59b extension support")
> >
> > from the mm-unstable tree and commit:
> >
> > 0597b9c8627e ("riscv: Add ISA extension parsing for Zalasr")
> >
> > from the risc-v tree.
>
> [ ... ]
>
> > diff --cc arch/riscv/include/asm/hwcap.h
> > index f98fcb5c17d5,ae3852c4f2ca..000000000000
> > --- a/arch/riscv/include/asm/hwcap.h
> > +++ b/arch/riscv/include/asm/hwcap.h
> > @@@ -106,7 -106,7 +106,8 @@@
> > #define RISCV_ISA_EXT_ZAAMO 97
> > #define RISCV_ISA_EXT_ZALRSC 98
> > #define RISCV_ISA_EXT_ZICBOP 99
> > -#define RISCV_ISA_EXT_ZALASR 100
> > +#define RISCV_ISA_EXT_SVRSW60T59B 100
> > ++#define RISCV_ISA_EXT_ZALASR 101
> >
> > #define RISCV_ISA_EXT_XLINUXENVCFG 127
>
> I think it might be easier for us, and would result in fewer merge
> conflicts, if we took this series through the RISC-V tree. We're merging
> in quite a few changes to this hwcap.h file, and touching it in -mm is
> likely to result in some unnecessary merge conflicts when we send it to
> Linus.
>
> If you'd still prefer to take it via -mm, we could also establish a shared
> base.
Is it worth the fuss? This patchset hits on mm/ quite a lot, it's now
in mm.git's allegedly-nonrebasing mm-stable branch and it's a trivial
one-liner fixup.
Unless you have a lot of material pending merge (at -rc7??) then I'd
say just let this be.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2025-11-25 17:40 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 5+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2025-11-24 1:05 linux-next: manual merge of the risc-v tree with the mm-unstable tree Stephen Rothwell
2025-11-25 9:12 ` Paul Walmsley
2025-11-25 17:40 ` Andrew Morton [this message]
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2025-11-27 23:27 Stephen Rothwell
2025-11-28 18:24 ` Andrew Morton
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20251125094027.62b358b4ba98e599a366eb3b@linux-foundation.org \
--to=akpm@linux-foundation$(echo .)org \
--cc=david@redhat$(echo .)com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger$(echo .)kernel.org \
--cc=linux-next@vger$(echo .)kernel.org \
--cc=luxu.kernel@bytedance$(echo .)com \
--cc=palmer@dabbelt$(echo .)com \
--cc=paul@pwsan$(echo .)com \
--cc=pjw@kernel$(echo .)org \
--cc=sfr@canb$(echo .)auug.org.au \
--cc=zhangchunyan@iscas$(echo .)ac.cn \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox