On 26.03.2020 15:50, Andrew Cooper wrote: > On a perhaps tangential note, what (if anything) are you plans regarding > backport here? > > These defines are ok for a transitional period across a series (and > probably means I'll need to get the AMD side ready to be committed at > the same time), but I don't think we'd want them in the code for the > longterm. > > I personally wasn't overly concerned about backports, but if you are, we > should probably take this into consideration for the fixes.
Till now I didn't see a strong reason why backporting might be needed (or even just wanted). If you think there is one, arranging for backport material to come first would of course be nice. And indeed, the #define-s you mention are meant to be there just to limit the churn of this immediate patch; I'd be happy to see them go away in another patch immediately after. Jan
