On 3/26/24 06:56, Alistair Francis wrote:
On Tue, Mar 26, 2024 at 7:53 PM Michael Tokarev <m...@tls.msk.ru> wrote:
On 24.03.2024 21:12, Daniel Henrique Barboza wrote:
On 3/24/24 12:07, Michael Tokarev wrote:
Unfortunately this doesn't quite work, the following changes
fail to apply to 8.2:
929e521a47 target/riscv: always clear vstart for ldst_whole insns
b46631f122 target/riscv: remove 'over' brconds from vector trans
d57dfe4b37 trans_rvv.c.inc: remove redundant mark_vs_dirty() calls
bac802ada8 target/riscv: enable 'vstart_eq_zero' in the end of insns
385e575cd5 target/riscv/kvm: fix timebase-frequency when using KVM acceleration
The amount of work can be non-trivial for this backport, so I'd say we should
leave it aside for now. If someone has a good argument for this work then we
can re-evaluate.
So, out of 15 patches in this series (minus the first one already
mentioned) - should I pick 9 remaining patches for stable (the ones
which applies) or none at all? :)
Sorry for the confusion.
The 9 patches that applied and
385e575cd5 target/riscv/kvm: fix timebase-frequency when using KVM acceleration
should all be picked for stable.
PS: What is the best way in future to help ease some of the stable
burden? Should I try and cherry pick them beforehand and then mention
that as a follow up to the PR?
We believe your judgement about what should or shouldn't be in stable, so IMO
you can
be pro-active into cherry picking fixes into stable and mention it in the PR.
Thanks,
Daniel
Alistair
Thanks,
/mjt
