On 8/9/19 10:22 PM, Philippe Mathieu-Daudé wrote: > Hi Peter, Paolo, Alex, Thomas :) > > On 7/2/19 4:08 PM, Peter Maydell wrote: >> On Mon, 1 Jul 2019 at 20:49, Philippe Mathieu-Daudé <phi...@redhat.com> >> wrote: > [...] >>> $ git backport-diff -u v3 -r target-arm.next..v4 >>> Key: >>> [----] : patches are identical >>> [####] : number of functional differences between upstream/downstream patch >>> [down] : patch is downstream-only >>> The flags [FC] indicate (F)unctional and (C)ontextual differences, >>> respectively >>> > [skipping patches already applied...] > >>> 004/8:[----] [--] 'RFC target/arm: Restrict pre-ARMv7 cpus to TCG' >>> 005/8:[----] [--] 'RFC target/arm: Do not build pre-ARMv7 cpus when using >>> KVM' >>> 006/8:[----] [--] 'RFC target/arm: Restrict R and M profiles to TCG' >>> 007/8:[----] [--] 'RFC target/arm: Do not build A/M-profile cpus when using >>> KVM' >>> 008/8:[----] [--] 'target/arm: Do not build TCG objects when TCG is off' >> >> I'm going to apply patches 1 and 2 to target-arm.next for rc0 (since >> 2 is helpful to redhat downstream and taking 1 now reduces the >> amount of code-movement patches you'll need to rebase). Patch 3 >> doesn't compile and 4-8 are rfc. > > The remaining patches can be applied without conflict, so no need to > respin (yet) IMO. > > Paolo/Thomas, do you mind reviewing patches 5 and 7? They are kconfig > related. > > Peter/Alex, do you mind reviewing patches 4 and 6 first, then 5 and 7 (5 > and 7 can wait for Paolo/Thomas' review first).
Patches 4/6 were tagged 'RFC' for late 4.1 inclusion, so can be considered normal patches once 4.2 dev cycle opens.
