On Mon, 22 May 2017 18:25:41 PDT (-0700), rdun...@infradead.org wrote: > On 05/22/17 18:16, Olof Johansson wrote: >> Hi Palmer, >> >> On Mon, May 22, 2017 at 5:41 PM, Palmer Dabbelt <pal...@dabbelt.com> wrote: >> >>> In addition to the threaded messages, our port can be found on Git Hib >>> >>> https://github.com/riscv/riscv-linux/tree/riscv-for-submission-v1 >>> >>> [PATCH 1/7] RISC-V: Top-Level Makefile for riscv{32,64} >>> [PATCH 2/7] RISC-V: arch/riscv Makefile and Kconfigs >>> [PATCH 3/7] RISC-V: Device Tree Documentation >>> [PATCH 4/7] RISC-V: arch/riscv/include >>> [PATCH 5/7] RISC-V: arch/riscv/lib >>> [PATCH 6/7] RISC-V: arch/riscv/kernel >>> [PATCH 7/7] RISC-V: arch/riscv/mm >> >> So, one overall comment on this patchset is that it's not bisectable >> (i.e. early patches add Makefile contents that refers to directories >> not yet introduced). >> >> While it's not overly important to really split up a new architecture >> introduction into small incremental patches, we generally strive to >> have the tree fully buildable at any given commit. Some minor >> rearranging would alleviate these problems. > > Neither the email patches nor the git tree have any Signed-off-by: > entries AFAICT.
Makes sense. I went through and checked everything for copyright, so I'll sign off on the next patch set. Thanks!
