[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [PULL 00/10] ppc queue

From: Michael Tokarev
Subject: Re: [PULL 00/10] ppc queue
Date: Mon, 29 May 2023 09:01:52 +0300
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:102.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/102.11.0

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.. ;)

So be it, no actual issue so not applying to -stable.

Thank you for the clarification!


reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]