Hi all,

Today's linux-next merge of the risc-v tree got a conflict in:

  arch/riscv/include/asm/hwcap.h

between commit:

  a2fb99195ca8 ("riscv: add RISC-V Svrsw60t59b extension support")

from the mm-unstable tree and commit:

  0597b9c8627e ("riscv: Add ISA extension parsing for Zalasr")

from the risc-v tree.

I fixed it up (see below) and can carry the fix as necessary. This
is now fixed as far as linux-next is concerned, but any non trivial
conflicts should be mentioned to your upstream maintainer when your tree
is submitted for merging.  You may also want to consider cooperating
with the maintainer of the conflicting tree to minimise any particularly
complex conflicts.

-- 
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell

diff --cc arch/riscv/include/asm/hwcap.h
index f98fcb5c17d5,ae3852c4f2ca..000000000000
--- a/arch/riscv/include/asm/hwcap.h
+++ b/arch/riscv/include/asm/hwcap.h
@@@ -106,7 -106,7 +106,8 @@@
  #define RISCV_ISA_EXT_ZAAMO		97
  #define RISCV_ISA_EXT_ZALRSC		98
  #define RISCV_ISA_EXT_ZICBOP		99
 -#define RISCV_ISA_EXT_ZALASR		100
 +#define RISCV_ISA_EXT_SVRSW60T59B	100
++#define RISCV_ISA_EXT_ZALASR		101
  
  #define RISCV_ISA_EXT_XLINUXENVCFG	127
  

Hi Andrew,

On Mon, 24 Nov 2025, Stephen Rothwell wrote:

> Today's linux-next merge of the risc-v tree got a conflict in:
> 
>   arch/riscv/include/asm/hwcap.h
> 
> between commit:
> 
>   a2fb99195ca8 ("riscv: add RISC-V Svrsw60t59b extension support")
> 
> from the mm-unstable tree and commit:
> 
>   0597b9c8627e ("riscv: Add ISA extension parsing for Zalasr")
> 
> from the risc-v tree.

[ ... ]

> diff --cc arch/riscv/include/asm/hwcap.h
> index f98fcb5c17d5,ae3852c4f2ca..000000000000
> --- a/arch/riscv/include/asm/hwcap.h
> +++ b/arch/riscv/include/asm/hwcap.h
> @@@ -106,7 -106,7 +106,8 @@@
>   #define RISCV_ISA_EXT_ZAAMO		97
>   #define RISCV_ISA_EXT_ZALRSC		98
>   #define RISCV_ISA_EXT_ZICBOP		99
>  -#define RISCV_ISA_EXT_ZALASR		100
>  +#define RISCV_ISA_EXT_SVRSW60T59B	100
> ++#define RISCV_ISA_EXT_ZALASR		101
>   
>   #define RISCV_ISA_EXT_XLINUXENVCFG	127

I think it might be easier for us, and would result in fewer merge 
conflicts, if we took this series through the RISC-V tree.  We're merging 
in quite a few changes to this hwcap.h file, and touching it in -mm is 
likely to result in some unnecessary merge conflicts when we send it to 
Linus.

If you'd still prefer to take it via -mm, we could also establish a shared 
base.

What do you think?


- Paul

On Tue, 25 Nov 2025 02:12:26 -0700 (MST) Paul Walmsley <pjw@kernel.org> wrote:

> Hi Andrew,
> 
> On Mon, 24 Nov 2025, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> 
> > Today's linux-next merge of the risc-v tree got a conflict in:
> > 
> >   arch/riscv/include/asm/hwcap.h
> > 
> > between commit:
> > 
> >   a2fb99195ca8 ("riscv: add RISC-V Svrsw60t59b extension support")
> > 
> > from the mm-unstable tree and commit:
> > 
> >   0597b9c8627e ("riscv: Add ISA extension parsing for Zalasr")
> > 
> > from the risc-v tree.
> 
> [ ... ]
> 
> > diff --cc arch/riscv/include/asm/hwcap.h
> > index f98fcb5c17d5,ae3852c4f2ca..000000000000
> > --- a/arch/riscv/include/asm/hwcap.h
> > +++ b/arch/riscv/include/asm/hwcap.h
> > @@@ -106,7 -106,7 +106,8 @@@
> >   #define RISCV_ISA_EXT_ZAAMO		97
> >   #define RISCV_ISA_EXT_ZALRSC		98
> >   #define RISCV_ISA_EXT_ZICBOP		99
> >  -#define RISCV_ISA_EXT_ZALASR		100
> >  +#define RISCV_ISA_EXT_SVRSW60T59B	100
> > ++#define RISCV_ISA_EXT_ZALASR		101
> >   
> >   #define RISCV_ISA_EXT_XLINUXENVCFG	127
> 
> I think it might be easier for us, and would result in fewer merge 
> conflicts, if we took this series through the RISC-V tree.  We're merging 
> in quite a few changes to this hwcap.h file, and touching it in -mm is 
> likely to result in some unnecessary merge conflicts when we send it to 
> Linus.
> 
> If you'd still prefer to take it via -mm, we could also establish a shared 
> base.

Is it worth the fuss?  This patchset hits on mm/ quite a lot, it's now
in mm.git's allegedly-nonrebasing mm-stable branch and it's a trivial
one-liner fixup.

Unless you have a lot of material pending merge (at -rc7??) then I'd
say just let this be.