Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the risc-v tree with the mm-unstable tree

From: Andrew Morton <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 25 Nov 2025 09:40:27 -0800

On Tue, 25 Nov 2025 02:12:26 -0700 (MST) Paul Walmsley <[email-masked]> 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.