Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH] s390x/cpumodel: remove ais from z14 default model-> also for 2.10.1

[Christian Borntraeger <borntraeger@de.ibm.com>]

On 09/27/2017 10:57 AM, Cornelia Huck wrote:
> On Wed, 27 Sep 2017 09:41:21 +0200
> Christian Borntraeger <borntraeger@de.ibm.com> wrote:
> 
>> On 09/27/2017 09:39 AM, Cornelia Huck wrote:
>>> On Tue, 26 Sep 2017 20:26:31 +0200
>>> David Hildenbrand <david@redhat.com> wrote:
>>>   
>>>> On 26.09.2017 20:05, Christian Borntraeger wrote:  
>>>>> We disabled ais for 2.10 lets also remove it from the z14 default model.
>>>>>
>>>>> Fixes: 3f2d07b3b01e  s390x/ais: for 2.10 stable: disable ais facility
>>>>> Signed-off-by: Christian Borntraeger <borntraeger@de.ibm.com>
>>>>> ---
>>>>>  target/s390x/gen-features.c | 1 -
>>>>>  1 file changed, 1 deletion(-)
>>>>>
>>>>> diff --git a/target/s390x/gen-features.c b/target/s390x/gen-features.c
>>>>> index c8dc104..68e6c31 100644
>>>>> --- a/target/s390x/gen-features.c
>>>>> +++ b/target/s390x/gen-features.c
>>>>> @@ -527,7 +527,6 @@ static uint16_t default_GEN13_GA1[] = {
>>>>>  #define default_GEN13_GA2 EmptyFeat
>>>>>  
>>>>>  static uint16_t default_GEN14_GA1[] = {
>>>>> -    S390_FEAT_ADAPTER_INT_SUPPRESSION,
>>>>>      S390_FEAT_INSTRUCTION_EXEC_PROT,
>>>>>      S390_FEAT_GUARDED_STORAGE,
>>>>>      S390_FEAT_VECTOR_PACKED_DECIMAL,
>>>>>     
>>>>
>>>> Yes, this has to go into stable, otherwise the migration safe stable
>>>> model would be changed.
>>>>
>>>> Apart from that, this looks just fine.  
>>>
>>> So, this should go into stable only, as the patches currently on the
>>> list will fix this properly for 2.11, right?  
>>
>> No this also has to go into 2.11 (otherwise the default model for z14 would differ)
>> so maybe change the subject when applying.
>>
> 
> OK, so it looks like I should do the following:
> - Get this upstream as a single patch so that it does not miss the
>   2.10.1 train.

Can you add the Cc stable? I forgot that.

> - Send another pull with the ais(yours)/phb(mine)/whatever(I hope
>   that's it...) fixups once we're confident about those.

yes.
> 
> Agreed?
>