From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.0 required=3.0 tests=HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_PASS autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 82033C04AB1 for ; Mon, 13 May 2019 07:43:54 +0000 (UTC) Received: from lists.gnu.org (lists.gnu.org [209.51.188.17]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5720621019 for ; Mon, 13 May 2019 07:43:54 +0000 (UTC) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org 5720621019 Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=fail (p=none dis=none) header.from=redhat.com Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=qemu-devel-bounces+qemu-devel=archiver.kernel.org@nongnu.org Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:52590 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1hQ5cn-0004xS-Jx for qemu-devel@archiver.kernel.org; Mon, 13 May 2019 03:43:53 -0400 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([209.51.188.92]:48632) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1hQ5bz-0004bV-9I for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 13 May 2019 03:43:04 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1hQ5by-0001kB-Bx for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 13 May 2019 03:43:03 -0400 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:53128) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1hQ5by-0001jl-5j; Mon, 13 May 2019 03:43:02 -0400 Received: from smtp.corp.redhat.com (int-mx03.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.13]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mx1.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 89EAA307D91E; Mon, 13 May 2019 07:43:00 +0000 (UTC) Received: from gondolin (dhcp-192-222.str.redhat.com [10.33.192.222]) by smtp.corp.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3CC206B8C7; Mon, 13 May 2019 07:42:59 +0000 (UTC) Date: Mon, 13 May 2019 09:42:57 +0200 From: Cornelia Huck To: Thomas Huth Message-ID: <20190513094257.43acf1ec.cohuck@redhat.com> In-Reply-To: <3c34e021-9bc5-08c0-2aad-f643470fe35f@redhat.com> References: <20190508094857.21145-1-thuth@redhat.com> <20190508094857.21145-3-thuth@redhat.com> <04ebd3c0-34e2-d21c-2b04-616d52056a86@de.ibm.com> <3c34e021-9bc5-08c0-2aad-f643470fe35f@redhat.com> Organization: Red Hat GmbH MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.79 on 10.5.11.13 X-Greylist: Sender IP whitelisted, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.5.16 (mx1.redhat.com [10.5.110.48]); Mon, 13 May 2019 07:43:00 +0000 (UTC) X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.2.x-3.x [generic] X-Received-From: 209.132.183.28 Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [qemu-s390x] [PULL SUBSYSTEM s390x 2/3] s390-bios: Skip bootmap signature entries X-BeenThere: qemu-devel@nongnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.21 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Cc: jjherne@linux.ibm.com, Christian Borntraeger , qemu-s390x@nongnu.org, qemu-devel@nongnu.org, armbru@redhat.com Errors-To: qemu-devel-bounces+qemu-devel=archiver.kernel.org@nongnu.org Sender: "Qemu-devel" On Sat, 11 May 2019 08:15:21 +0200 Thomas Huth wrote: > On 10/05/2019 15.59, Christian Borntraeger wrote: > > Shall we cc stable this? > > I think I'd rather not do it unless someone really speaks up that they > urgently need it. If we could use the binary from the master branch, I'd > say go for it, but in this case we'd need to build a separate > s390-ccw.img for this (without the DASD passthrough patches), and since > the stable branch does not get that much testing attention from all the > s390x developers, you'd end up with a firmware binary in the stable > branch that is not very well tested... This does not sound very > appealing to me. FWIW, I have rebuilt the bios for the stable tree in the past, when a bios patch had been picked. In this case, however, I would need to rely on someone else to sanity-check the binary. How likely are folks to run -stable QEMU with a bootmap containing signatures? It would be one more QEMU version with toleration for this, but I expect distros to pick up this one anyway?