From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([140.186.70.92]:38534) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Rcik4-0007hv-Il for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 19 Dec 2011 14:19:21 -0500 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Rcik3-0005oR-5p for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 19 Dec 2011 14:19:20 -0500 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:37207) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Rcik2-0005oK-Qc for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 19 Dec 2011 14:19:19 -0500 Date: Mon, 19 Dec 2011 19:19:09 +0000 From: "Daniel P. Berrange" Message-ID: <20111219191909.GB3425@redhat.com> References: <20111217082958.GJ2520@amd.home.annexia.org> <4EECB1B0.7050404@codemonkey.ws> <4EECB3C5.6060608@codemonkey.ws> <20111217152514.GM2520@amd.home.annexia.org> <4EECC227.4060904@codemonkey.ws> <20111217164956.GA16848@morn.localdomain> <20111219103101.GB27938@redhat.com> <4EEF7595.7060301@codemonkey.ws> <20111219174307.GB2558@redhat.com> <4EEF7C53.6050800@codemonkey.ws> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <4EEF7C53.6050800@codemonkey.ws> Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] insmod virtio-blk is broken in qemu 1.0 Reply-To: "Daniel P. Berrange" List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Anthony Liguori Cc: "seabios@seabios.org" , "Richard W.M. Jones" , qemu-devel@nongnu.org, Max Filippov , Kevin O'Connor , Avi Kivity , Amit Shah , Gerd Hoffmann On Mon, Dec 19, 2011 at 12:02:59PM -0600, Anthony Liguori wrote: > On 12/19/2011 11:43 AM, Daniel P. Berrange wrote: > >I hadn't raised it again, because I had mistakenly assumed QEMU > >will automatically pull in the newer SeaBios release before 1.0 > >came out. I could have more aggresively bugged people on qemu-devel > >to update SeaBios, but given your point above about not wanting to > >rebase Seabios its not clear that would have helped sort this out > >before 1.0 > > We really need to update SeaBIOS whenever there is a bug that we > know requires an update. Things breakdown because of one or more of > the following reasons: > > 1) User submits a patch to seabios@, Kevin applies it. But that > doesn't necessarily trigger anything happening in QEMU. > > Ideally, the above mentioned user would submit a submodule update once (1) happens. > > 2) Kevin fixes something on his own or someone else changes > something in the broader SeaBIOS community. That may not even be > visible in QEMU. > > Syncing right before release isn't a good strategy either because > that means we're pulling in something that hasn't been tested > extensively at the very tail end of our release cycle. > > I would like to point out that August -> October is a pretty long > time period for a regression like this to exist. I think that > really indicates that the primary problem is testing, not frequency > of SeaBIOS updates. One complication is that alot of us are not necessarily testing the SeaBIOS that is in QEMU GIT. Fedora rawhide includes qemu-kvm.git snapshots which are updated fairly frequently, but we don't use the SeaBIOS QEMU includes. Instead Fedora includes the latest SeaBIOS upstream release. So Fedora 16/rawhide users would never have seen this particular bug for longer than a couple of weeks until the fixed SeaBIOS arrived. Regards, Daniel -- |: http://berrange.com -o- http://www.flickr.com/photos/dberrange/ :| |: http://libvirt.org -o- http://virt-manager.org :| |: http://autobuild.org -o- http://search.cpan.org/~danberr/ :| |: http://entangle-photo.org -o- http://live.gnome.org/gtk-vnc :|