On Fri, May 10, 2024 at 02:25:26PM -0700, Charlie Jenkins wrote:
> On Fri, May 10, 2024 at 09:50:32PM +0100, Conor Dooley wrote:
> > On Tue, May 07, 2024 at 06:03:19PM +0100, Conor Dooley wrote:
> > > On Fri, May 03, 2024 at 11:18:21AM -0700, Charlie Jenkins wrote:
> > > > All of the supported vendor extensions that have been listed in
> > > > riscv_isa_vendor_ext_list can be exported through /proc/cpuinfo.
> > > > 
> > > > Signed-off-by: Charlie Jenkins <charlie@rivosinc.com>
> > > 
> > > This seems fine, thanks for updating this interface :)
> > > 
> > > Reviewed-by: Conor Dooley <conor.dooley@microchip.com>
> > 
> > Hmm, actually the automation on patchwork is complaining a bunch about
> > the series, but I think that's mostly false positives except for this
> > patch. The nommu defconfigs are prob the easiest way to reproduce this:
> >   /build/tmp.QPMRM3oUNu/arch/riscv/kernel/vendor_extensions.c:41:55: error: 'struct riscv_isa_vendor_ext_data_list' has no member named 'vendor_bitmap'
> >   /build/tmp.QPMRM3oUNu/arch/riscv/kernel/vendor_extensions.c:42:60: error: 'struct riscv_isa_vendor_ext_data_list' has no member named 'per_hart_vendor_bitmap'; did you mean 'per_hart_isa_bitmap'?
> >   /build/tmp.QPMRM3oUNu/arch/riscv/kernel/vendor_extensions.c:43:60: error: 'struct riscv_isa_vendor_ext_data_list' has no member named 'bitmap_size'
> > 
> > Cheers,
> > Conor.
> 
> The false negatives always throw me off.

Aye, it's pretty frustrating for me trying to report anything. Any time
a bunch of headers change produces a bunch of file rebuilds and
therefore warnings. That should in theory be caught by the fact that we
apply the patch & build, jump back to HEAD~1, build that & grab the
"before" warning state and then jump forward, rebuild the patch and
gather the "after" state. The idea is that that is an apples:apples
comparison as the same files will need to be rebuilt for both but it is
falling over somewhere. Maybe I'll have time to look into that soonTM.

> The errors are also offset by
> one patch.

Ye, that's my bad I think. In a rush off to another patch before the
thought I had on it left my brain and just pressed reply on the wrong
email. Sorry bout that :)

> This was actually introduced in the following patch "riscv:
> Introduce vendor variants of extension helpers" because I accidentally
> fixed this issue in the patch "riscv: cpufeature: Extract common
> elements from extension checking" instead of the one it was introduced
> in.