NACK: [SRU][K/Unstable][PATCH 0/1] Merge riscv64 config and annotations

[Andrea Righi]

On Fri, Jun 24, 2022 at 02:40:20PM +0100, Emil Renner Berthing wrote:
> On Fri, 24 Jun 2022 at 14:12, Andrea Righi <andrea.righi at canonical.com> wrote:
> > On Fri, Jun 24, 2022 at 09:31:09AM +0100, Emil Renner Berthing wrote:
> > > [Impact]
> > >
> > >  * We would like to eventually build and test the unstable and generic
> > >    kernels on the riscv64 architecture. Fixing this is a step towards
> > >    that.
> > >
> > >  * Having the riscv64 configuration alongside the other architectures
> > >    should ensure it doesn't drift away from the generic configuration
> > >    over time.
> > >
> > >  * This allows us to do backports more easily.
> > >
> > > [Test Plan]
> > >
> > >  * After merging riscv64 the generated configuration for other
> > >    architectures should not change.
> > >
> > >  * The generated riscv64 configuration should be as close as possible to
> > >    the current linux-riscv configuration. Right now unstable is based on
> > >    5.19 while the riscv kernel is based on 5.18, so it can't be identical.
> > >
> > > [Where problems could occur]
> > >
> > >  * Adding the riscv64 annotations may subtly change annotations from other
> > >    architectures.
> > >
> > >  * Adding the riscv64 configuration and annotations might confuse tooling
> > >    scripts that are not prepared to handle the new architecture.
> > >
> > > [Other Info]
> > >
> > >  * In the near future we'd also like to base the StarFive and Allwinner
> > >    (Nezha) kernels on the same series that will become the generic kinetic
> > >    kernel.
> > >
> > > Emil Renner Berthing (1):
> > >   UBUNTU: [Config] Merge riscv64 config and annotations
> >
> > This doesn't apply anymore to linux-unstable, that is now moving toward
> > 5.19.
> >
> > And in general, I'm a bit skeptical to apply this to the generic kernel,
> > it just means more work to have a generic kernel ready when we move to a
> > new upstream kernel version (because of the extra work to re-align the
> > config/annotations also for riscv).
> 
> Sorry, I think I might have just got the tag wrong. I only meant for this to be
> applied to linux-unstable. As far as I can see it doesn't apply only because of
> the removed "family=ubuntu" line in debian/scripts/misc/kernelconfig.
> 
> Shall I send a new version on top of that?

Oh nevermind! I noticed a conflict and I didn't look closely, the
conflict is only in kernelconfig and it can be applied with a little
fuzz. So ignore my comment about the conflict.

Instead, I'd like to know what other people think about maintaining
riscv configs/annotations in the main kernel vs keeping them in
derivatives.

-Andrea