| Message ID | 20230208225328.1636017-2-heiko@sntech.de (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| State | Accepted |
| Commit | 1eac28201ac0725192f5ced34192d281a06692e5 |
| Delegated to: | Palmer Dabbelt |
| Headers | show |
| Series | Small fixups for the Zbb string functions | expand |
| Context | Check | Description |
|---|---|---|
| conchuod/cover_letter | success | Series has a cover letter |
| conchuod/tree_selection | success | Guessed tree name to be for-next |
| conchuod/fixes_present | success | Fixes tag not required for -next series |
| conchuod/maintainers_pattern | success | MAINTAINERS pattern errors before the patch: 13 and now 13 |
| conchuod/verify_signedoff | success | Signed-off-by tag matches author and committer |
| conchuod/kdoc | success | Errors and warnings before: 0 this patch: 0 |
| conchuod/build_rv64_clang_allmodconfig | success | Errors and warnings before: 0 this patch: 0 |
| conchuod/module_param | success | Was 0 now: 0 |
| conchuod/build_rv64_gcc_allmodconfig | success | Errors and warnings before: 1 this patch: 1 |
| conchuod/alphanumeric_selects | success | Out of order selects before the patch: 59 and now 59 |
| conchuod/build_rv32_defconfig | success | Build OK |
| conchuod/dtb_warn_rv64 | success | Errors and warnings before: 2 this patch: 2 |
| conchuod/header_inline | success | No static functions without inline keyword in header files |
| conchuod/checkpatch | success | total: 0 errors, 0 warnings, 0 checks, 10 lines checked |
| conchuod/source_inline | success | Was 0 now: 0 |
| conchuod/build_rv64_nommu_k210_defconfig | success | Build OK |
| conchuod/verify_fixes | success | No Fixes tag |
| conchuod/build_rv64_nommu_virt_defconfig | success | Build OK |
Hey Heiko, On 8 February 2023 22:53:27 GMT, Heiko Stuebner <heiko@sntech.de> wrote: >From: Heiko Stuebner <heiko.stuebner@vrull.eu> > >As Andrew reported, > Zb* comes after Zi* according 27.11 "Subset Naming Convention" >so fix the ordering accordingly. > >Reported-by: Andrew Jones <ajones@ventanamicro.com> >Signed-off-by: Heiko Stuebner <heiko.stuebner@vrull.eu> The whole "getting it wrong immediately after fixing it up" ;) Reviewed-by: Conor Dooley <conor.dooley@microchip.com> >--- > arch/riscv/kernel/cpu.c | 2 +- > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) > >diff --git a/arch/riscv/kernel/cpu.c b/arch/riscv/kernel/cpu.c >index 420228e219f7..8400f0cc9704 100644 >--- a/arch/riscv/kernel/cpu.c >+++ b/arch/riscv/kernel/cpu.c >@@ -185,9 +185,9 @@ arch_initcall(riscv_cpuinfo_init); > * New entries to this struct should follow the ordering rules described above. > */ > static struct riscv_isa_ext_data isa_ext_arr[] = { >- __RISCV_ISA_EXT_DATA(zbb, RISCV_ISA_EXT_ZBB), > __RISCV_ISA_EXT_DATA(zicbom, RISCV_ISA_EXT_ZICBOM), > __RISCV_ISA_EXT_DATA(zihintpause, RISCV_ISA_EXT_ZIHINTPAUSE), >+ __RISCV_ISA_EXT_DATA(zbb, RISCV_ISA_EXT_ZBB), > __RISCV_ISA_EXT_DATA(sscofpmf, RISCV_ISA_EXT_SSCOFPMF), > __RISCV_ISA_EXT_DATA(sstc, RISCV_ISA_EXT_SSTC), > __RISCV_ISA_EXT_DATA(svinval, RISCV_ISA_EXT_SVINVAL),
Am Donnerstag, 9. Februar 2023, 00:20:10 CET schrieb Conor Dooley: > Hey Heiko, > > On 8 February 2023 22:53:27 GMT, Heiko Stuebner <heiko@sntech.de> wrote: > >From: Heiko Stuebner <heiko.stuebner@vrull.eu> > > > >As Andrew reported, > > Zb* comes after Zi* according 27.11 "Subset Naming Convention" > >so fix the ordering accordingly. > > > >Reported-by: Andrew Jones <ajones@ventanamicro.com> > >Signed-off-by: Heiko Stuebner <heiko.stuebner@vrull.eu> > > The whole "getting it wrong immediately after fixing it up" ;) > > Reviewed-by: Conor Dooley <conor.dooley@microchip.com> I'm still hopefully that I'll learn at some point that "b" comes after "i", at least with riscv extensions. Decades of sorting the other way around are hard to break :-D . > >--- > > arch/riscv/kernel/cpu.c | 2 +- > > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) > > > >diff --git a/arch/riscv/kernel/cpu.c b/arch/riscv/kernel/cpu.c > >index 420228e219f7..8400f0cc9704 100644 > >--- a/arch/riscv/kernel/cpu.c > >+++ b/arch/riscv/kernel/cpu.c > >@@ -185,9 +185,9 @@ arch_initcall(riscv_cpuinfo_init); > > * New entries to this struct should follow the ordering rules described above. > > */ > > static struct riscv_isa_ext_data isa_ext_arr[] = { > >- __RISCV_ISA_EXT_DATA(zbb, RISCV_ISA_EXT_ZBB), > > __RISCV_ISA_EXT_DATA(zicbom, RISCV_ISA_EXT_ZICBOM), > > __RISCV_ISA_EXT_DATA(zihintpause, RISCV_ISA_EXT_ZIHINTPAUSE), > >+ __RISCV_ISA_EXT_DATA(zbb, RISCV_ISA_EXT_ZBB), > > __RISCV_ISA_EXT_DATA(sscofpmf, RISCV_ISA_EXT_SSCOFPMF), > > __RISCV_ISA_EXT_DATA(sstc, RISCV_ISA_EXT_SSTC), > > __RISCV_ISA_EXT_DATA(svinval, RISCV_ISA_EXT_SVINVAL), >
On Wed, Feb 08, 2023 at 11:53:27PM +0100, Heiko Stuebner wrote: > From: Heiko Stuebner <heiko.stuebner@vrull.eu> > > As Andrew reported, > Zb* comes after Zi* according 27.11 "Subset Naming Convention" > so fix the ordering accordingly. > > Reported-by: Andrew Jones <ajones@ventanamicro.com> > Signed-off-by: Heiko Stuebner <heiko.stuebner@vrull.eu> > --- > arch/riscv/kernel/cpu.c | 2 +- > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) > > diff --git a/arch/riscv/kernel/cpu.c b/arch/riscv/kernel/cpu.c > index 420228e219f7..8400f0cc9704 100644 > --- a/arch/riscv/kernel/cpu.c > +++ b/arch/riscv/kernel/cpu.c > @@ -185,9 +185,9 @@ arch_initcall(riscv_cpuinfo_init); > * New entries to this struct should follow the ordering rules described above. > */ > static struct riscv_isa_ext_data isa_ext_arr[] = { > - __RISCV_ISA_EXT_DATA(zbb, RISCV_ISA_EXT_ZBB), > __RISCV_ISA_EXT_DATA(zicbom, RISCV_ISA_EXT_ZICBOM), > __RISCV_ISA_EXT_DATA(zihintpause, RISCV_ISA_EXT_ZIHINTPAUSE), > + __RISCV_ISA_EXT_DATA(zbb, RISCV_ISA_EXT_ZBB), > __RISCV_ISA_EXT_DATA(sscofpmf, RISCV_ISA_EXT_SSCOFPMF), > __RISCV_ISA_EXT_DATA(sstc, RISCV_ISA_EXT_SSTC), > __RISCV_ISA_EXT_DATA(svinval, RISCV_ISA_EXT_SVINVAL), > -- > 2.39.0 > Reviewed-by: Andrew Jones <ajones@ventanamicro.com>
On Wed, Feb 08, 2023 at 11:20:10PM +0000, Conor Dooley wrote: > Hey Heiko, > > On 8 February 2023 22:53:27 GMT, Heiko Stuebner <heiko@sntech.de> wrote: > >From: Heiko Stuebner <heiko.stuebner@vrull.eu> > > > >As Andrew reported, > > Zb* comes after Zi* according 27.11 "Subset Naming Convention" > >so fix the ordering accordingly. > > > >Reported-by: Andrew Jones <ajones@ventanamicro.com> > >Signed-off-by: Heiko Stuebner <heiko.stuebner@vrull.eu> > > The whole "getting it wrong immediately after fixing it up" ;) Hi Conor, Do you know any patchwork savvy people that could whip up a check for this array? :-) drew
On Thu, Feb 09, 2023 at 09:25:20AM +0100, Andrew Jones wrote: > On Wed, Feb 08, 2023 at 11:20:10PM +0000, Conor Dooley wrote: > > Hey Heiko, > > > > On 8 February 2023 22:53:27 GMT, Heiko Stuebner <heiko@sntech.de> wrote: > > >From: Heiko Stuebner <heiko.stuebner@vrull.eu> > > > > > >As Andrew reported, > > > Zb* comes after Zi* according 27.11 "Subset Naming Convention" > > >so fix the ordering accordingly. > > > > > >Reported-by: Andrew Jones <ajones@ventanamicro.com> > > >Signed-off-by: Heiko Stuebner <heiko.stuebner@vrull.eu> > > > > The whole "getting it wrong immediately after fixing it up" ;) > > Hi Conor, > > Do you know any patchwork savvy people that could whip up a check > for this array? :-) Maybe that is more of a checkpatch type thing? Either way, I'll put it on the todo list I suppose!
On Thu, Feb 09, 2023 at 09:03:50AM +0000, Conor Dooley wrote: > On Thu, Feb 09, 2023 at 09:25:20AM +0100, Andrew Jones wrote: > > On Wed, Feb 08, 2023 at 11:20:10PM +0000, Conor Dooley wrote: > > > Hey Heiko, > > > > > > On 8 February 2023 22:53:27 GMT, Heiko Stuebner <heiko@sntech.de> wrote: > > > >From: Heiko Stuebner <heiko.stuebner@vrull.eu> > > > > > > > >As Andrew reported, > > > > Zb* comes after Zi* according 27.11 "Subset Naming Convention" > > > >so fix the ordering accordingly. > > > > > > > >Reported-by: Andrew Jones <ajones@ventanamicro.com> > > > >Signed-off-by: Heiko Stuebner <heiko.stuebner@vrull.eu> > > > > > > The whole "getting it wrong immediately after fixing it up" ;) > > > > Hi Conor, > > > > Do you know any patchwork savvy people that could whip up a check > > for this array? :-) > > Maybe that is more of a checkpatch type thing? I think this is too specific for general checkpatch. I once proposed on the KVM mailing list that checkpatch should gain support for plugins, allowing specific directories to provide a .checkpatch script, or whatever, where it puts its own checks. I never followed-up by actually proposing that to checkpatch maintainers though. > > Either way, I'll put it on the todo list I suppose! In the absence of checkpatch plugins, I think subsystem-specific patch management tools, like patchwork, are the next best place to put specific checks. But, I agree it's a bit late. It'd be better if the developers could run the checks themselves before posting. Thanks, drew
diff --git a/arch/riscv/kernel/cpu.c b/arch/riscv/kernel/cpu.c index 420228e219f7..8400f0cc9704 100644 --- a/arch/riscv/kernel/cpu.c +++ b/arch/riscv/kernel/cpu.c @@ -185,9 +185,9 @@ arch_initcall(riscv_cpuinfo_init); * New entries to this struct should follow the ordering rules described above. */ static struct riscv_isa_ext_data isa_ext_arr[] = { - __RISCV_ISA_EXT_DATA(zbb, RISCV_ISA_EXT_ZBB), __RISCV_ISA_EXT_DATA(zicbom, RISCV_ISA_EXT_ZICBOM), __RISCV_ISA_EXT_DATA(zihintpause, RISCV_ISA_EXT_ZIHINTPAUSE), + __RISCV_ISA_EXT_DATA(zbb, RISCV_ISA_EXT_ZBB), __RISCV_ISA_EXT_DATA(sscofpmf, RISCV_ISA_EXT_SSCOFPMF), __RISCV_ISA_EXT_DATA(sstc, RISCV_ISA_EXT_SSTC), __RISCV_ISA_EXT_DATA(svinval, RISCV_ISA_EXT_SVINVAL),