On Thu, Jul 22, 2021 at 1:53 PM Palmer Dabbelt [off-list ref] wrote:

On Thu, 15 Jul 2021 19:14:20 PDT (-0700), bmeng.cn@gmail.com wrote:

quoted

On Thu, Jul 8, 2021 at 9:29 PM Bin Meng [off-list ref] wrote:

quoted

Hi Palmer,

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

quoted

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?

Ping?

Sorry, I missed this one.  It looks like the patch that adds mem= and
fixes the bug has already been merged, so I'm not really quite sure what
the right thing to do is here: we don't really want the mem= code on
stable, but we do want the fix.  I went ahead and did

commit 444818b599189fd8b6c814da542ff8cfc9fe67d4 (HEAD -> fixes, palmer/fixes)
gpg: Signature made Wed 21 Jul 2021 10:21:05 PM PDT
gpg:                using RSA key 2B3C3747446843B24A943A7A2E1319F35FBB1889
gpg:                issuer "palmer@dabbelt.com"
gpg: Good signature from "Palmer Dabbelt [off-list ref]" [ultimate]
gpg:                 aka "Palmer Dabbelt [off-list ref]" [ultimate]
Merge: e73f0f0ee754 d0e4dae74470
Author: Palmer Dabbelt [off-list ref]
Date:   Wed Jul 21 22:18:58 2021 -0700

    Merge remote-tracking branch 'riscv/riscv-fix-32bit' into fixes

    This contains a single fix for 32-bit boot.  It happens this was already
    fixed by c9811e379b21 ("riscv: Add mem kernel parameter support"), but
    the bug existed before that feature addition so I've applied the patch
    earlier and then merged it in (which results in a conflict, which is
    fixed via not changing the resulting tree).

    * riscv/riscv-fix-32bit:
      riscv: Fix 32-bit RISC-V boot failure

as that"s the best I could come up with -- then the fix will land on
master, which should cause it to get pulled onto stable.

Greg: is there a better way to make something like this get to stable?

We can:

1. git revert c9811e379b21 ("riscv: Add mem kernel parameter support")
2. git am <this patch>, cc stable
3. Kefeng resent a new patch that adds the mem kernel parameter
support, on top of mine

Regards,
Bin