There are two reasons for that:
1. In the README, GCC baseline is chosen to be 12.2, whereas Debian 11
   uses GCC 10.2.1.
2. Xen requires mandatory some Z extensions, but GCC 10.2.1 does not
   support Z extensions in -march, causing the compilation to fail.

Signed-off-by: Oleksii Kurochko <oleksii.kurochko@gmail.com>
---
Changes in v7:
 - new patch.
---
 automation/gitlab-ci/build.yaml | 14 --------------
 automation/scripts/containerize |  1 -
 2 files changed, 15 deletions(-)

diff --git a/automation/gitlab-ci/build.yaml b/automation/gitlab-ci/build.yaml
index 35e224366f..57fe29127d 100644
--- a/automation/gitlab-ci/build.yaml
+++ b/automation/gitlab-ci/build.yaml
@@ -720,20 +720,6 @@ debian-12-ppc64le-gcc:
     HYPERVISOR_ONLY: y
 
 # RISC-V 64 cross-build
-debian-11-riscv64-gcc:
-  extends: .gcc-riscv64-cross-build
-  variables:
-    CONTAINER: debian:11-riscv64
-    KBUILD_DEFCONFIG: tiny64_defconfig
-    HYPERVISOR_ONLY: y
-
-debian-11-riscv64-gcc-debug:
-  extends: .gcc-riscv64-cross-build-debug
-  variables:
-    CONTAINER: debian:11-riscv64
-    KBUILD_DEFCONFIG: tiny64_defconfig
-    HYPERVISOR_ONLY: y
-
 debian-12-riscv64-gcc:
   extends: .gcc-riscv64-cross-build
   variables:
diff --git a/automation/scripts/containerize b/automation/scripts/containerize
index bc43136078..0953e0728c 100755
--- a/automation/scripts/containerize
+++ b/automation/scripts/containerize
@@ -31,7 +31,6 @@ case "_${CONTAINER}" in
     _fedora) CONTAINER="${BASE}/fedora:41-x86_64";;
     _bullseye-ppc64le) CONTAINER="${BASE}/debian:11-ppc64le" ;;
     _bookworm-ppc64le) CONTAINER="${BASE}/debian:12-ppc64le" ;;
-    _bullseye-riscv64) CONTAINER="${BASE}/debian:11-riscv64" ;;
     _bookworm-riscv64) CONTAINER="${BASE}/debian:12-riscv64" ;;
     _bookworm-x86_64-gcc-ibt) CONTAINER="${BASE}/debian:12-x86_64-gcc-ibt" ;;
     _bookworm|_bookworm-x86_64|_) CONTAINER="${BASE}/debian:12-x86_64" ;;
-- 
2.48.1

On 20.02.2025 18:44, Oleksii Kurochko wrote:
> There are two reasons for that:
> 1. In the README, GCC baseline is chosen to be 12.2, whereas Debian 11
>    uses GCC 10.2.1.

Which README is this? Not the one at the root of the tree, afaics, which
continues to mention only x86 and Arm.

Jan

On 2/21/25 9:35 AM, Jan Beulich wrote:
> On 20.02.2025 18:44, Oleksii Kurochko wrote:
>> There are two reasons for that:
>> 1. In the README, GCC baseline is chosen to be 12.2, whereas Debian 11
>>     uses GCC 10.2.1.
> Which README is this? Not the one at the root of the tree, afaics, which
> continues to mention only x86 and Arm.

I missed to add this patch:https://gitlab.com/xen-project/people/olkur/xen/-/commit/57901e60066e93d986670aa91fb390774c965d3f.

Would it be enough just to do a reply for this patch series and send what git format-patch gives?

~ Oleksii

On 21.02.2025 12:57, Oleksii Kurochko wrote:
> 
> On 2/21/25 9:35 AM, Jan Beulich wrote:
>> On 20.02.2025 18:44, Oleksii Kurochko wrote:
>>> There are two reasons for that:
>>> 1. In the README, GCC baseline is chosen to be 12.2, whereas Debian 11
>>>     uses GCC 10.2.1.
>> Which README is this? Not the one at the root of the tree, afaics, which
>> continues to mention only x86 and Arm.
> 
> I missed to add this patch:https://gitlab.com/xen-project/people/olkur/xen/-/commit/57901e60066e93d986670aa91fb390774c965d3f.
> 
> Would it be enough just to do a reply for this patch series and send what git format-patch gives?

Don't know. In particular I have been under the impression that "git format-patch"
formats things slightly differently than what "git am" would expect. Can't you use
"git send-email" here as well, making that patch 0.5/4?

Jan

On 2/21/25 1:30 PM, Jan Beulich wrote:
> On 21.02.2025 12:57, Oleksii Kurochko wrote:
>> On 2/21/25 9:35 AM, Jan Beulich wrote:
>>> On 20.02.2025 18:44, Oleksii Kurochko wrote:
>>>> There are two reasons for that:
>>>> 1. In the README, GCC baseline is chosen to be 12.2, whereas Debian 11
>>>>      uses GCC 10.2.1.
>>> Which README is this? Not the one at the root of the tree, afaics, which
>>> continues to mention only x86 and Arm.
>> I missed to add this patch:https://gitlab.com/xen-project/people/olkur/xen/-/commit/57901e60066e93d986670aa91fb390774c965d3f.
>>
>> Would it be enough just to do a reply for this patch series and send what git format-patch gives?
> Don't know. In particular I have been under the impression that "git format-patch"
> formats things slightly differently than what "git am" would expect. Can't you use
> "git send-email" here as well, making that patch 0.5/4?

Done by using git send-email.
At least, my mail app parsed this case well.

~ Oleksii

On 21.02.2025 12:57, Oleksii Kurochko wrote:
> 
> On 2/21/25 9:35 AM, Jan Beulich wrote:
>> On 20.02.2025 18:44, Oleksii Kurochko wrote:
>>> There are two reasons for that:
>>> 1. In the README, GCC baseline is chosen to be 12.2, whereas Debian 11
>>>     uses GCC 10.2.1.
>> Which README is this? Not the one at the root of the tree, afaics, which
>> continues to mention only x86 and Arm.
> 
> I missed to add this patch:https://gitlab.com/xen-project/people/olkur/xen/-/commit/57901e60066e93d986670aa91fb390774c965d3f.
> 
> Would it be enough just to do a reply for this patch series and send what git format-patch gives?

Oh, and: The patch description wants to change as well before you send.

Jan