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

[Conor Dooley]

On 26 February 2026 11:40:51 GMT, Anup Patel <apatel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>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.

It's clearly not pointless when there are unexplained TODOs.
Seeing to-do items is absolutely sufficient grounds to question them, and when the response doesn't clearly explain why they're okay, my thoughts about RFC are reasonable - even if ultimately they might be incorrect.
Instead of being passive aggressive with me, you could have just explained why it was okay.