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

[Emil Renner Berthing]

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?

> I'd be definitely better to maintain riscv configs/annotations in a
> separate derivative kernel from this point of view...
>
> -Andrea