From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from simark.ca by simark.ca with LMTP id 6ftNAqbeF2SZnxQAWB0awg (envelope-from ) for ; Mon, 20 Mar 2023 00:18:46 -0400 Received: by simark.ca (Postfix, from userid 112) id F0BA91E223; Mon, 20 Mar 2023 00:18:45 -0400 (EDT) Authentication-Results: simark.ca; dkim=pass (1024-bit key; secure) header.d=sourceware.org header.i=@sourceware.org header.a=rsa-sha256 header.s=default header.b=bpi3Tcgv; dkim-atps=neutral X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.6 (2021-04-09) on simark.ca X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-7.0 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI, RDNS_DYNAMIC,URIBL_BLOCKED autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.6 Received: from sourceware.org (ip-8-43-85-97.sourceware.org [8.43.85.97]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by simark.ca (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9301B1E0D3 for ; Mon, 20 Mar 2023 00:18:45 -0400 (EDT) Received: from server2.sourceware.org (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E8150385B512 for ; Mon, 20 Mar 2023 04:18:43 +0000 (GMT) DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org E8150385B512 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=sourceware.org; s=default; t=1679285923; bh=hZewXIdY4rcGQ1w9Gtu6+w/eo41RvnvuntdkhvkWs+I=; h=Date:To:Cc:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:List-Id: List-Unsubscribe:List-Archive:List-Post:List-Help:List-Subscribe: From:Reply-To:From; b=bpi3TcgvThe0HtCfyHdpHSudhLnVS2nQ1zhjKfFqdqbC/J0rXetXpV/IdHHD6Vjcr dnW9+O078UzwtLRGiSJdwUAmjRrOiPj/LZ4kevSEuFtWEjkld1ICmwEsexEDD/CiUP PxyW75dDBiwAR6v4YQMn3qHcBlWSzM6k+7yGZ9qc= Received: from mail-wr1-x433.google.com (mail-wr1-x433.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::433]) by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4B06E3858C53 for ; Mon, 20 Mar 2023 04:18:17 +0000 (GMT) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.4.2 sourceware.org 4B06E3858C53 Received: by mail-wr1-x433.google.com with SMTP id v25so5612824wra.12 for ; Sun, 19 Mar 2023 21:18:17 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20210112; t=1679285896; h=in-reply-to:content-disposition:mime-version:references:message-id :subject:cc:to:from:date:x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:date :message-id:reply-to; bh=hZewXIdY4rcGQ1w9Gtu6+w/eo41RvnvuntdkhvkWs+I=; b=6NyjViXSJwnq5OwojPfMKC2vAnOwLt7glwzW10C6o7bDM0AhC+7oY1lSx6jJHi50z3 mo5oY5s4RVBykQiLsUU70LzeDNxskLjhQx+IFlBv2JNE9GDg4x9xdZRklUi054kDIwu3 0KK0goHjIW2JxD25dmKKhnZG2WG0zJmi7Nsv1gGAL06e8aJDDOVOlRDD8mgAd8QQMH3N 0ppJlGsWl/3//H84JCHB54AXVmD22gNWyx/7OrBIiVk59eRcYPh6rg/WgczX4jMYt9L9 ztZIySHTeeGthOV9Cpv7DM73JH3ahEI9DAK9HvELxgISvFZY22fe26hPWxqO0y3j+qpM JEqA== X-Gm-Message-State: AO0yUKWK0sfMEeacNYJLqVcfHCdcKORRD12EEnLjy9EHotdLkx3NNXfb hetCFIwd+Xq28Hzfe7nWBR4J X-Google-Smtp-Source: AK7set8FaO2h9wR71HKRtE+Gv53UR2kprLYtK+huiVY4cqJtFQprEYABKf97KH3d2n5W6vey2NAQOg== X-Received: by 2002:a5d:58e4:0:b0:2c7:46f:c410 with SMTP id f4-20020a5d58e4000000b002c7046fc410mr12733309wrd.36.1679285895743; Sun, 19 Mar 2023 21:18:15 -0700 (PDT) Received: from takamaka.gnat.com ([2a01:cb22:1d5:1100:9093:afb1:9153:7e01]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id q7-20020adff947000000b002d419f661d6sm6336902wrr.82.2023.03.19.21.18.15 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256/256); Sun, 19 Mar 2023 21:18:15 -0700 (PDT) Received: by takamaka.gnat.com (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 2E3AD81E88; Mon, 20 Mar 2023 08:18:13 +0400 (+04) Date: Mon, 20 Mar 2023 08:18:13 +0400 To: Luis Machado Cc: Joel Brobecker , Luis Machado via Gdb , Andrew Burgess Subject: Re: Backporting minor fix to older gdb releases Message-ID: References: <87bkkufdw0.fsf@redhat.com> <8d4ac3fc-c508-2a92-5af2-efaa18da7a20@arm.com> <58337751-da16-58e1-0327-1e452472decd@arm.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <58337751-da16-58e1-0327-1e452472decd@arm.com> X-BeenThere: gdb@sourceware.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Gdb mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , From: Joel Brobecker via Gdb Reply-To: Joel Brobecker Errors-To: gdb-bounces+public-inbox=simark.ca@sourceware.org Sender: "Gdb" > > FWIW, there is no real policy that I know of. > > > > We have been known to accept patches on release branches past the .2 > > release. It's been very rare, though. In all cases, the push was done > > with the understanding that there would likely not be another official > > release off that branch, so that was purely for the benefit of people > > who wanted to build from the HEAD of a release branch rather than from > > an official release. > > > > Whether we should be doing it in this case, I don't have a strong > > opinion. I think Andrew is making good points, and I'm wondering > > whether it will actually serve anyone if we backport the patches. > > On the other hand, are the patches extra safe? If they are, perhaps > > in the spirit of not standing in the way of someone willing to make > > it better for others... > > > > All reasonable points, I agree. > > The patch (a single one) is mostly trivial reordering of code to fix a > pseudo-register number that we get wrong for the pauth feature. It > helps in that it allows people to use gdb 9/10/11/12 with a new qemu. > Otherwise those gdb's will just crash on connection, with no way > around it. This part I understood. The part I wasn't sure about is whether there was any known entity that would pick the branch update up, and rebuild with it. Nevertheless, this is not critical at all. As long as the patch is extra safe (which it looks like it can't possibly cause things to be worse, except in the pauth case which is already crashing), I don't see a reason why we should block the patch's inclusion in our older branches. You can go right ahead. -- Joel