Re: [PULL 00/15] riscv-to-apply queue

[Daniel Henrique Barboza]

On 3/26/24 06:56, Alistair Francis wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 26, 2024 at 7:53 PM Michael Tokarev <mjt@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