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). Thanks! Phil.
