Re: [PULL 00/10] ppc queue

["Nicholas Piggin" <npiggin@gmail.com>]

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