On Wed, 27 Sep 2017 09:41:21 +0200
Christian Borntraeger <borntrae...@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 <da...@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 <borntrae...@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.
- Send another pull with the ais(yours)/phb(mine)/whatever(I hope
that's it...) fixups once we're confident about those.
Agreed?
