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

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

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.

What do you think?

- Paul