On Sat, Oct 8, 2022 at 10:28 AM Tomas Vanek <tom_...@users.sourceforge.net> wrote: > > Antonio, > > On 08/10/2022 09:33, Antonio Borneo wrote: > > I would like to go ahead with merge for v0.12.0-rc2, but I have not > > clear if you agree merging this series: > > - https://review.openocd.org/7230 > > "target: re-examine before arp_waitstate in ocd_process_reset_inner" > > - https://review.openocd.org/7229 > > "target/hla_target: try to re-examine under reset in hl_assert_reset()" > > - https://review.openocd.org/7228 > > "target/cortex_m: try to re-examine under reset in > > cortex_m_assert_reset()" > > - https://review.openocd.org/6745 > > "target/cortex_m: make reset robust again" > > Yes, let's merge them if you don't have objections.
No objections, I'm going to merge them > > nor if you plan to revert "target: reset target examined flag if > > target::examine() fails" with > > https://review.openocd.org/6753 > > can you please let me know, or go directly to merge them? > > Currently I know about two regressions (one in cortex_m and independent > one in hla/waitstate) caused by > 6548: target: reset target examined flag if target::examine() fails | > https://review.openocd.org/c/openocd/+/6548 > They should be mostly fixed by the series #6745, 7228-7230. > > But how can we be sure that there is no other regressions - not yet > discovered - in other parts of code, in other targets etc? > > I see both pro: #6753 gives some safety from possible regressions from > the change target_examined behaviour > and con: OpenOCD git master has been with #6548 for long time, we can > also break something with #6753 in rc2. > But honestly it's not my fault that nobody cared since November 2021. > > I'm slightly for merging #6753 to rc2, this is IMO the better from two > bad options. So far the only known regressions are the two you have already fixed and the alert from Zephyr, which is fixed too. I'm for keeping 6753 pending, for the time being, and tag -rc2 for further tests. Antonio
