On Mon May 29, 2023 at 4:01 PM AEST, Michael Tokarev wrote: > 29.05.2023 05:18, Nicholas Piggin wrote: > .. > > >> 01/10 target/ppc: Fix fallback to MFSS for MFFS* instructions on pre 3.0 > >> ISAs > >> 02/10 target/ppc: Fix width of some 32-bit SPRs > >> 03/10 target/ppc: Alignment faults do not set DSISR in ISA v3.0 onward > >> 05/10 hw/ppc/prep: Fix wiring of PIC -> CPU interrupt > >> > >> Or are these not important for -stable? Or maybe there are other changes > >> which should be picked too? > > > > They certainly fix some parts of target emulation, but what is the > > guidance for backporting those type of fixes? Most of the patches I sent > > including 2,3 were just found from inspection or new test code and not > > real software failing. > > > > Should just simple ones go in? 32-bit SPRs do not fix entirely the > > behaviour of all SPRs, just one aspect. In another fix I had (that > > didn't make it in this merge), was a bit more complicated and the > > first iteration caused a deadlock that didn't show up in basic test > > like booting Linux. > > > > My guess is that fixes that correct an issue with real software running > > on the target should be ported to stable. Perhaps "obviously correct" > > small fixes as well. But not sure about larger changes. > > This is exactly why I asked, - because I don't clearly understand how > important these to have in -stable. And also to remind that -stable > exist, just in case.. ;)
Ah okay, makes sense. I was just clarifying myself since I wasn't too sure. > So be it, no actual issue so not applying to -stable. I will think about it and try to keep -stable in mind. Of my patches there are one or two coming up that could probably go in there, if not these ones. Thanks, Nick
