Hi Palmer,

On Thu, Jul 1, 2021 at 10:20 AM Bin Meng [off-list ref] wrote:

On Thu, Jul 1, 2021 at 10:08 AM Kefeng Wang [off-list ref] wrote:

quoted

On 2021/6/30 19:58, Bin Meng wrote:

quoted

On Mon, Jun 28, 2021 at 11:21 AM Bin Meng [off-list ref] wrote:

quoted

On Mon, Jun 28, 2021 at 10:28 AM Kefeng Wang [off-list ref] wrote:

quoted

On 2021/6/28 9:15, Bin Meng wrote:

quoted

On Mon, Jun 28, 2021 at 8:53 AM Kefeng Wang [off-list ref] wrote:

quoted

Hi， sorry for the mistake，the bug is fixed by

https://lore.kernel.org/linux-riscv/20210602085517.127481-2-wangkefeng.wang@huawei.com/ (local)

What are we on the patch you mentioned?

I don't see it applied in the linux/master.

Also there should be a "Fixes" tag and stable@vger.kernel.org cc'ed
because 32-bit is broken since v5.12.

https://kernel.googlesource.com/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/riscv/linux/+/c9811e379b211c67ba29fb09d6f644dd44cfcff2

it's on Palmer' riscv-next.

Not sure riscv-next is for which release? This is a regression and
should be on 5.13.

quoted

Hi Palmer, should I resend or could you help me to add the fixes tag?

Your patch mixed 2 things (fix plus one feature) together, so it is
not proper to back port your patch.

"mem=" will change the range of memblock, so the fix part must be included.

Yes, so you can rebase the "mem=" changes on top of my patch.

The practice is that we should not mix 2 things in one patch. I can
imagine that you wanted to add "mem=" to RISC-V and suddenly found the
existing logic was broken, so you sent one patch to do both.

quoted

quoted

Here is my 2 cents:

1. Drop your patch from riscv-next
2. Apply my patch as it is a simple fix to previous commit. This
allows stable kernel to cherry-pick the fix to v5.12 and v5.13.
3. Rebase your patch against mine, and resend v2

Let me know if this makes sense.

It is not a big problem for me, but I have no right abourt riscv-next,

let's wait Palmer's advise.

Sure. Palmer, let me know your thoughts.

Ping?

Regards,
Bin