On 14/11/2024 12:46 pm, Jan Beulich wrote: > On 13.11.2024 16:20, Andrew Cooper wrote: >> On 12/11/2024 1:00 pm, Jan Beulich wrote: >>> the release is due by the end of the month. Please point out backports you >>> find >>> missing from the respective staging branch, but which you consider relevant. >> Looking over the XenServer patchqueue: > First, overall - that's quite a few.
As chance would have it, we've just started efforts to move forward from 4.17. >> ba709d514aac: x86/viridian: Clarify some viridian logging strings > Not really a backporting candidate imo. >> This is a diagnostic improvement, also from a customer bug: >> >> 2f413e22fa5e: x86/msr: add log messages to MSR state load error paths > Again - not really a backporting candidate imo. There have been a steady stream of requests for help on list and on matrix, with people asking the wrong question because the Viridian error message is plain wrong for anyone who isn't an expert in the TLFS spec. What is even worse is that I've been trying to fix this damn error message for 5 years https://lore.kernel.org/xen-devel/20190913160404.495-1-andrew.coop...@citrix.com/T/#u because it had already been causing confusion for years prior. Good (or better) error messages are worth their weight in gold, for ease of investigating bug reports if nothing else.They really should be considered in the same category as bugfixes, IMO. >> These are from a livepatching snafu: >> >> 3a28da8f4daf: xen/livepatch: remove useless check for duplicated sections >> 8c81423038f1: xen/livepatch: drop load_addr Elf section field >> 86d09d16dd74: xen/livepatch: simplify and unify logic in prepare_payload() >> fa49f4be413c: xen/livepatch: do Xen build-id check earlier >> aa5a06d5d6ed: x86/alternatives: do not BUG during apply >> >> where the buildid check is much too late. > I certainly agree with taking the last two. The first three though are all > "no functional change", which generally I'd prefer to omit unless they're > strictly prereqs, or diverging from master is deemed to be a severe issue. Patch 1 might be able to be excluded without too much trouble. Patch 2 and 3 are both prerequisites; the first to get a usable pointer early enough to do the check, and the second to get a suitable helper to perform the check with. ~Andrew
