Re: preparations for 4.13.2 and 4.12.4

[Bertrand Marquis <Bertrand.Marquis@xxxxxxx>]

> On 11 Sep 2020, at 15:25, Julien Grall <julien@xxxxxxx> wrote:
> 
> Hi Bertrand,
> 
> On 11/09/2020 14:56, Bertrand Marquis wrote:
>>> On 11 Sep 2020, at 14:51, Julien Grall <julien@xxxxxxx> wrote:
>>> 
>>> Hi Bertrand,
>>> 
>>> On 11/09/2020 14:32, Bertrand Marquis wrote:
>>>>> On 11 Sep 2020, at 14:11, Jan Beulich <jbeulich@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>> All,
>>>>> 
>>>>> the releases are about due, but will of course want to wait for the
>>>>> XSA fixes going public on the 22nd. Please point out backports
>>>>> you find missing from the respective staging branches, but which
>>>>> you consider relevant. (Ian, Julien, Stefano: I notice there once
>>>>> again haven't been any tools or Arm side backports at all so far
>>>>> since the most recent stable releases from these branches. But
>>>>> maybe there simply aren't any.)
>>>>> 
>>>>> One that I have queued already, but which first need to at least
>>>>> pass the push gate to master, are
>>>>> 
>>>>> 8efa46516c5f hvmloader: indicate ACPI tables with "ACPI data" type in e820
>>>>> e5a1b6f0d207 x86/mm: do not mark IO regions as Xen heap
>>>>> b4e41b1750d5 b4e41b1750d5 [4.14 only]
>>>>> 
>>>>> On the Arm side I'd also like to ask for
>>>>> 
>>>>> 5d45ecabe3c0 xen/arm64: force gcc 10+ to always inline generic atomics 
>>>>> helpers
>>>> +1
>>>> Could those fixes also be considered:
>>>> 3b418b3326 arm: Add Neoverse N1 processor identification
>>>> 858c0be8c2 xen/arm: Enable CPU Erratum 1165522 for Neoverse
>>>> 1814a626fb xen/arm: Update silicon-errata.txt with the Neovers AT erratum
>>> The processor is quite new so may I ask why we would want to backport on 
>>> older Xen?
>> 4.14 at least would be good as it is the current stable and N1SDP is support 
>> in Yocto which is based on 4.14.
> While I understand external project are often based on stable release, I 
> don't want to always backport errata. Some of them are quite involved and 
> this is a risk for others.
> 
> In this case, the erratum has already been implemented for other processors. 
> So the risk is minimal.
> 
>> But as the official one will be on next Yocto release this would be ok to 
>> consider only 4.14 here.
> 
> 4.14 only would be my preference.

This is ok for me if we have all those only in 4.14 (errata and FP/SIMD).

Cheers
Bertrand