From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Marek Marczykowski Subject: Re: Backports to stable Date: Mon, 8 Oct 2018 12:40:28 +0200 Message-ID: <20181008104028.GA1645@mail-itl> References: <20181007010433.GB2975@mail-itl> <5BBB236202000078001EF6EC@prv1-mh.provo.novell.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============1040022101872884264==" Return-path: Received: from us1-rack-dfw2.inumbo.com ([104.130.134.6]) by lists.xenproject.org with esmtp (Exim 4.89) (envelope-from ) id 1g9Sxm-00064f-Je for xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org; Mon, 08 Oct 2018 10:40:34 +0000 In-Reply-To: <5BBB236202000078001EF6EC@prv1-mh.provo.novell.com> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xenproject.org Sender: "Xen-devel" To: Jan Beulich Cc: xen-devel List-Id: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org --===============1040022101872884264== Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha256; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="qDbXVdCdHGoSgWSk" Content-Disposition: inline --qDbXVdCdHGoSgWSk Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Mon, Oct 08, 2018 at 03:29:06AM -0600, Jan Beulich wrote: > >>> On 07.10.18 at 03:04, wrote: > > I'd like to propose backporting GCC7/8 fixes to all stable branches. Be= low > > is a list up to stable-4.6, but some of the patches are already on > > select branches (developed during that release cycle, or already > > backported). >=20 > I continue to be opposed to backporting anything that is not needed > for dealing security issues to branches which are in security-support- > only mode, i.e. anything older than 4.8 at this point in time. Ok, noted. It's hard to compile those still security-supported versions on recent systems. But if one need such combination (old Xen + new other things), then can also apply those patches locally. I just wanted to reduce work duplication. > Furthermore I notice that 4.6 has just moved out of security support, > at the end of last week. Hmm, 18+18 months from October 13, 2015 is at the end of this week. > > e0a97098e2 x86: fix section type mismatch in mm.c >=20 > This describes itself as a Clang fix - has it become relevant for > gcc now too? Yes, for gcc 8.1 at least. > Anyway - this has been in even the original 4.7.0, > so as per above not a candidate for any actively maintained > branch. >=20 > > # This one doesn't apply cleanly, because acpi stuff moved > > # tools/firmware/hvmloader/acpi -> tools/acpi > > 858dbaaeda libacpi: fixes for iasl >=3D 20180427 >=20 > Iirc I've applied this back to 4.8 already, and quite some time ago. Yes, this one is missing only in 4.7 and 4.6. --=20 Best Regards, Marek Marczykowski-G=C3=B3recki Invisible Things Lab A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text. Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing? --qDbXVdCdHGoSgWSk Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iQEzBAEBCAAdFiEEhrpukzGPukRmQqkK24/THMrX1ywFAlu7NBwACgkQ24/THMrX 1ywDrAf+NuxJQIWuolOiPch7rKWmwh1lSh37XaMuKSwvS+ODIHtw29W3ywsEa4hx xL6avgrNCYahd73xRMACvkYYkCYRcBeQGhV44xaPGV3BJc20IlXqB8qJsjCg8480 oTWrQmS0fwLnwIexe0Mh8UcTMGbWLlgl5GxobrJIi8xp+1DVKcqQy7WrnjzJob43 wotc5/20J0+yvm62zrHYKPXFXQvJ8naa0XkxpvCkcw7sqnxzHYbh3HF+DBXOELEz liC7291JjTEWPyae6513aHrqZpwhi12AT/nPs46aFeCB9wqYV2ZQijxsyFYFyGsF fcJyrhewLan60GAjp6XAdSL0Mc48zA== =veGC -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --qDbXVdCdHGoSgWSk-- --===============1040022101872884264== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 Content-Disposition: inline X19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX18KWGVuLWRldmVs IG1haWxpbmcgbGlzdApYZW4tZGV2ZWxAbGlzdHMueGVucHJvamVjdC5vcmcKaHR0cHM6Ly9saXN0 cy54ZW5wcm9qZWN0Lm9yZy9tYWlsbWFuL2xpc3RpbmZvL3hlbi1kZXZlbA== --===============1040022101872884264==--