arch/riscv/staging

[Greg Kroah-Hartman]

On Fri, May 28, 2021 at 08:58:07AM +0000, Damien Le Moal wrote:
> On 2021/05/28 17:53, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> > On Fri, May 28, 2021 at 10:29:16AM +0200, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> >> On 28/05/21 03:06, Paul Walmsley wrote:
> >>> OK, well, maybe you and Damien can get together and spell out what you all
> >>> are concerned about regarding forks.  Then we can see if there's anything
> >>> that should be done to address it.
> >>>
> >>> Right now the only fork risk that I can see is related to the architecture
> >>> itself.
> >>
> >> The risk is that improvements to KVM RISC-V are developed in forks rather
> >> than in a single git tree.
> > 
> > Eventually they need to come back into the mainline tree, so that should
> > not be that big of an issue.
> > 
> > If it is, again, get the spec finished, what is preventing that from
> > happening this week?
> 
> We (kernel & riscv software developers) do not get to decide alone. RISC-V
> International specification group decides. And our input does not seem to have
> much effect on the completion timing. See this thread:
> 
> https://lists.riscv.org/g/tech-privileged/topic/80346318#465

Ok, as it sounds like this isn't going anywhere until the spec group
gets their work done, you all should just wait as there's no real need
for any kernel code here either, given that there can't be any hardware
made until the spec is finished anyway.

thanks,

greg k-h