Re: [PULL 00/50] ppc queue

["Cédric Le Goater" <clg@redhat.com>]

On 8/5/25 18:33, Michael Tokarev wrote:
> On 05.08.2025 19:26, Miles Glenn wrote:
>> On Tue, 2025-07-22 at 17:25 +03..00, Michael Tokarev wrote:
> ...
>>> There are currently 2 active stable branches, 7.2 and 10.0.
>>> Both are supposed to be long-term maintenance.  I think 7.2
>>> can be left behind already.
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>>
>>> /mjt
>>
>> Michael T.,
>>
>> All of the XIVE fixes/changes originating from myself were made in an
>> effort to get PowerVM firmware running on PowerNV with minimal testing
>> of OPAL firmware.  However, even with those fixes, running PowerVM on
>> PowerNV is still pretty unstable.  While backporting these fixes would
>> likely increase the stability of running PowerVM on PowerNV, I do think
>> it could pose significant risk to the stability of running OPAL on
>> PowerNV.  With that in mind, I think it's probably best if we did not
>> backport any of my own XIVE changes.
> 
> My view on this, - having in mind 10.0 most likely will be a long-term
> support branch - we can pick the PowerVM changes, and if a breakage with
> the case you mentioned is found (which will be the same breakage as with
> master branch, hopefully), we can pick fixes for these too.
> 
> Especially as we have more time now after release of 10.1 and before the
> next stable series.
> 
> So to me, breakage in stable series is not a good thing, but we can as
> well fix it there, - so there might be some balance between known bugs,
> possible breakage and future fixes.

We have a large set of functional tests for powernv, even checking
emulated nested virtualization IIRC. I still have some scripts running
16 sockets powernv machines with a bunch of pci devices to stress
emulation a bit more.

The upstream target is OPAL firmware, not PowerVM. Patches for PowerVM
may be proposed later, if deemed appropriate by the IBM simulation team.

Cheers,

C.


> But it's definitely your call, you know this area much better.
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> /mjt
>