Re: [Qemu-devel] Should we have a 2.0-rc3 ?

[Michael Tokarev <mjt@tls.msk.ru>]

11.04.2014 21:37, Peter Maydell wrote:
[]
> Patches on list but need review/ack and/or not sure whether to apply:
>  * kvm_physical_sync_dirty_bitmap bug

Paolo proposed to revert the change which lead to that bug, but it
seems wrong thing to do, since original code was clearly wrong.
Maybe it is a good idea to apply Hallyn's version instead of mine
(when done against the right tree), as it makes the code closer
to the original version but more correct.

>  * vmxnet3 patches

I think this is not dangerous to go in before 2.0.  We wont have more
testing even if it were applied much earlier, because this device is
rather exotic in qemu world and isn't used often.  On the other hand,
having less CVE IDs for a release is good, in my opinion.

> Raised as issues but no patches:
>  * PCI bus naming
>  * win64 virtio-scsi regression
> 
> Assistance welcomed in moving patches in the last two
> categories into either "ready to apply" or "not for 2.0" :-)
> 
> thanks
> -- PMM
>