Re: [PATCH v3 1/2] riscv: Introduce support for hardware break/watchpoints

[Anup Patel]

On Thu, Feb 26, 2026 at 2:14 PM Conor Dooley <conor@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On Thu, Feb 26, 2026 at 11:05:14AM +0530, Anup Patel wrote:
> > On Wed, Feb 25, 2026 at 2:31 PM Conor Dooley <conor@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > >
> > > On Wed, Feb 25, 2026 at 10:33:27AM +0530, Himanshu Chauhan wrote:
> > > > On Tue, Feb 24, 2026 at 1:33 PM Conor Dooley <conor.dooley@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > On Tue, Feb 24, 2026 at 09:30:24AM +0530, Himanshu Chauhan wrote:
> > > > > > Hi,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Mon, Feb 23, 2026 at 3:55 PM Conor Dooley <conor.dooley@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > On Mon, Feb 23, 2026 at 10:19:17AM +0530, Himanshu Chauhan wrote:
> > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Did you miss the comment at the end about the remaining TODOs?
> > > >
> > > > No. As I mentioned in the cover letter, the ptrace support is not
> > > > implemented here. I am actively working on it and these are
> > > > implemented in ptrace work.
> > > > The test is done using the perf events directly. The second patch in
> > > > this patch set has the test application.
> > >
> > > Then the patchset should still be marked RFC, since it is not finished.
> >
> > Wow! let's all of us post only large series (covering multiple features)
> > which are difficult to review instead of making life easier for reviewers
> > through incremental series which make gradual progress over-time.
>
> Where did I say don't post it? In fact, marking it RFC *requires*
> posting it. Don't put words in my mouth.
>

Well, I disagree with you suggestion of marking this series as RFC.
This series has well defined scope and is based on ratified spec.
A series need not cover all possible features to be a regular
non-RFC patches.

Don't throw your RFC related opinions pointlessly.

Regards,
Anup