From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Ian Campbell Subject: Re: Xen 4.6, OVMF and arm64 Date: Wed, 14 Oct 2015 14:05:55 +0100 Message-ID: <1444827955.23192.185.camel@citrix.com> References: <20151014112932.GG23759@zion.uk.xensource.com> <1444822709.23192.166.camel@citrix.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org Errors-To: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org To: Stefano Stabellini Cc: anthony.perard@citrix.com, xen-devel@lists.xensource.com, Wei Liu List-Id: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org On Wed, 2015-10-14 at 13:55 +0100, Stefano Stabellini wrote: > On Wed, 14 Oct 2015, Ian Campbell wrote: > > On Wed, 2015-10-14 at 12:29 +0100, Wei Liu wrote: > > > I can send a patch for Config.mk when the patch passed our tests. > > > > For xen-unstable I think we should just move up to > > http://xenbits.xen.org/gitweb/?p=osstest/ovmf.git;a=shortlog;h=refs/he > > ads/xen-tested-master > > > > We don't have any separate tests for ovmf in 4.6 (since there is > > currently > > no correpsonding git branch to even test, I think) so the only way to > > trigger those would be to backport a Config.mk change (again, I think). > > Maybe we should have a separate tree/branch for ovmf 4.6? What if a bug > is found? My point was only that we don't have one now, not that we shouldn't have one. Ian.