On Sun, Mar 25, 2018 at 8:03 AM, Peter Maydell <peter.mayd...@linaro.org> wrote:
> On 24 March 2018 at 18:13, Michael Clark <m...@sifive.com> wrote: > > This is a series of bug fixes and code cleanups that we would > > like to get in before the QEMU 2.12 release. We are respinning > > v6 of this series to include two new bug fixes. These changes > > are present in the downstream riscv.org riscv-all branch: > > > > - https://github.com/riscv/riscv-qemu/commits/riscv-all > > > > This series also addresses post-merge feedback such as updating > > the cpu initialization model to conform with other architectures > > as requested by Igor Mammedov. > > Hi. It looks to me like a fair number of these patches > are already reviewed, so we don't need to wait on the > rest being reviewed to get those into master. > > My suggestion is that you send a pullrequest now for the > reviewed patches, and send a patchset for review for the > new ones or the ones that still need review. (If there > are patches that are reviewed but depend on earlier ones > that need to go in set 2 then they go in set 2 as well.) > Unfortunately the reviewed patches are mostly just minor cleanups. It's almost not worth making a PR for them as *none* of the reviewed patches are actually bug fixes. They are things like removing unused definitions or replacing hardcoded constants with enums, removing unnesscary braces, etc, etc $ grep Reviewed outgoing/v6-00* outgoing/v6-0001-RISC-V-Make-virt-create_fdt-interface-consistent.patch:Reviewed-by: Philippe Mathieu-Daudé <f4...@amsat.org> outgoing/v6-0002-RISC-V-Replace-hardcoded-constants-with-enum-valu.patch:Reviewed-by: Philippe Mathieu-Daudé <f4...@amsat.org> outgoing/v6-0003-RISC-V-Make-virt-board-description-match-spike.patch:Reviewed-by: Philippe Mathieu-Daudé <f4...@amsat.org> outgoing/v6-0004-RISC-V-Use-ROM-base-address-and-size-from-memmap.patch:Reviewed-by: Philippe Mathieu-Daudé <f4...@amsat.org> outgoing/v6-0005-RISC-V-Remove-identity_translate-from-load_elf.patch:Reviewed-by: Philippe Mathieu-Daudé <f4...@amsat.org> outgoing/v6-0007-RISC-V-Remove-unused-class-definitions.patch:Reviewed-by: Philippe Mathieu-Daudé <f4...@amsat.org> outgoing/v6-0009-RISC-V-Include-intruction-hex-in-disassembly.patch:Reviewed-by: Philippe Mathieu-Daudé <f4...@amsat.org> outgoing/v6-0012-RISC-V-Make-some-header-guards-more-specific.patch:Reviewed-by: Philippe Mathieu-Daudé <f4...@amsat.org> outgoing/v6-0013-RISC-V-Make-virt-header-comment-title-consistent.patch:Reviewed-by: Philippe Mathieu-Daudé <f4...@amsat.org> outgoing/v6-0015-RISC-V-Remove-EM_RISCV-ELF_MACHINE-indirection.patch:Reviewed-by: Philippe Mathieu-Daudé <f4...@amsat.org> outgoing/v6-0017-RISC-V-Remove-braces-from-satp-case-statement.patch:Reviewed-by: Philippe Mathieu-Daudé <f4...@amsat.org> outgoing/v6-0022-RISC-V-Convert-cpu-definition-towards-future-mode.patch:Reviewed-by: Philippe Mathieu-Daudé <f4...@amsat.org> outgoing/v6-0022-RISC-V-Convert-cpu-definition-towards-future-mode.patch:Reviewed-by: Igor Mammedov <imamm...@redhat.com> The unreviewed patches, as I've mentioned many times are the ones that require reading the RISC-V Privileged ISA Specification or are actual bug fixes and hence are harder to review. They are in the maintainer's tree and are what folk who are interested in using RISC-V in QEMU are actually running. I can drop the fix to make ROM read-only it is not critical, however it is a bug fix. I went through with a critical eye and reviewed them myself and picked up a few minor issues, but I believe the patchset as a whole should be fine as long as I can find someone to Ack them. Otherwise we're sort of in a Catch-22 situation. 26 patches is a lot to still be carrying around much > beyond rc1, so I would like to see the size of this set > reducing rather than increasing. As the release process > moves forward the bar for "can this still go in" gradually > goes up -- by about rc3 it is at about "is this a > really critical bug or regression from the previous > release". > > (Also something seems to have unhelpfully decided to eat > or delay about half of your emails in this patchset :-( > Patchew only sees 14 of the 26. Our mailing list server > does seem to do that occasionally so that would be my > first guess at the culprit, but it's possible it's > something at your end.) > Phil asked that I send out only the patches that don't have review, so that's what I did.