Re: [PATCH dovetail v9 00/11] riscv: Add dovetail support

Florian Bezdeka <[email protected]> writes:

> On Fri, 2026-07-03 at 17:27 +0200, Tobias Schaffner wrote:
>> Hi all,
>> 
>> this series introduces initial support for Dovetail on RISC-V.
>> 
>> Feedback, suggestions, and especially reviews are very welcome.
>> 
>> Changes since v1:
>>  * Disable independent irq/softirq stack usage when pipelining
>>  * Drop KVM changes as long as they can not be properly tested
>> 
>> Changes since v2:
>>  * Rework trap handling
>> 
>> Changes since v3:
>>  * Included the IRQ pipelining patches to have all riscv specific
>>    patches included
>>  * Rebased to dovetail/v6.18.y-dovetail-rebase
>>  * Merged most of the fixes
>>  * Fixed IRQ Stack handling and enabled IRQ_STACKS again
>> 
>> Changes since v4:
>>  * Rebased to dovetail/v7.0.y-dovetail-rebase
>>  * Applied suggestions from the last patch set
>>  * Added starfive-visionfive2 board support
>>  * Introduced raw console device based on sbi debug console
>>  * Reworked pipelined irq handling
>> 
>> Changes since v5:
>>  * Rebased to tip of dovetail/v7.0.y-dovetail-rebase
>>  * Applied suggestions from the last patch set
>>  * Use mark_trap_entry/exit_raw for kernel mode exception paths which
>>    use irq_nmi_entry/exit for now, as the nmi irq handlers expect hard
>>    irqs to stay off. This may be be subject to further optimization at
>>    a later stage, but I do not see any negative impact latency wise in
>>    my tests.
>> 
>> Changes since v6:
>> Address the review comments from the last patch set:
>>  * Keep the virtual irq state in sync with the hard irq state in trap
>>    handlers
>>  * Fix irq_nesting imbalance when running with disabled IRQ_STACKS
>> 
>> Changes since v7:
>>  * Simplify Trap handling
>>  * Rebase to wip/flo/v7.1-dovetail-rebase
>> 
>> Changes since v8:
>>  * Further simplify trap handling adressing Florians suggestions and
>>    recent fixes to irq-entry-common
>
> Minor:
>
>  - Changelog in reverse order, newest first
>  - Enumeration of changed patches, so we don't have to review all
>    of them again.
>
>
>
> Philippe, how do we proceed here? Do you want me to update the +riscv
> branches that we have for 7.1 and than take over from there? Or should
> we move it to the 7.2 cycle?
>
> Same question for 7.1: How do we proceed as 7.2-rc1 is out... 

Please pick the risc-v port for 7.1, then I'll handle the forward port
to 7.2 from there.

-- 
Philippe.