On Tue, Mar 26, 2024 at 7:53 PM Michael Tokarev <m...@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? Alistair > > Thanks, > > /mjt
