[RFC 0/2] Putting some basic order on isa extension stuff

[Conor Dooley]

On Tue, Nov 29, 2022 at 04:48:32PM +0100, Andrew Jones wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 29, 2022 at 02:47:41PM +0000, Conor Dooley wrote:
> > RFC:
> > - I have not even tested this, I just did an allmodconfig
> > - I don't know if I re-ordered something that is sacrosanct
> > - I don't know if I changed all of the instances
> > - I didn't write a proper commit message for "patch" 2/2
> > 
> > With those caveats out of the way - all I did here was try to make
> > things consistent so that it'd be easier to point patch submitters at a
> > "do this order please".
> > 
> > I never know which of these can be moved without breaking stuff - but
> > they all seem to be internal use stuff since they're not in uapi?
> > 
> > @drew, I didn't touch the KVM ones - are they re-sortable too? My base
> > here is rc7 so if you did a reorder at any point there I'd not see it ;)
> 
> Right, we can't touch enum KVM_RISCV_ISA_EXT_ID as that's UAPI. All new
> extensions must be added at the bottom. We originally also had to keep
> kvm_isa_ext_arr[] in that order, but commit 1b5cbb8733f9 ("RISC-V: KVM:

Right, I knew that something had been changed in KVM land. It's probably
a good idea to say sort them all alphabetically apart from whichever
ones must be in other orders & explicitly note the reasons in-place.

> Make ISA ext mappings explicit") allows us to list its elements in any
> order, which means we could sort them in canonical order, if we wanted
> to. I think I'd rather have them in alphabetical order, though (they
> nearly are at the moment, except for the bottom two...) The only other
> place we have ISA extensions listed in KVM is in a switch statement,
> which of course doesn't matter, and it's currently in alphabetical order.

I did see the one in uAPI for KVM. Your idea in 2/2 of doing
alphabetical unless otherwise stated works for me as I just want
something concrete! If it works for the chief too, I'll resubmit and
drop the RFC...