From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:46725) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1WYEL7-0004W6-FZ for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 10 Apr 2014 08:44:25 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1WYEL3-0006aO-5D for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 10 Apr 2014 08:44:21 -0400 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:26928) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1WYEL2-0006ZF-TC for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 10 Apr 2014 08:44:17 -0400 Message-ID: <5346921A.2050705@redhat.com> Date: Thu, 10 Apr 2014 06:44:10 -0600 From: Eric Blake MIME-Version: 1.0 References: In-Reply-To: Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha256; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="durbv14R0fjAMvJiB8sJS0q22bXFXHv0B" Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] Should we have a 2.0-rc3 ? List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Peter Maydell , QEMU Developers Cc: "Michael S. Tsirkin" , Michael Roth , Alexander Graf , Anthony Liguori , Paolo Bonzini , =?UTF-8?B?QW5kcmVhcyBGw6RyYmVy?= This is an OpenPGP/MIME signed message (RFC 4880 and 3156) --durbv14R0fjAMvJiB8sJS0q22bXFXHv0B Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On 04/10/2014 05:17 AM, Peter Maydell wrote: > So far I know of at least three fixes which should probably > go into 2.0: > * my fix for the configure stack-protector checks on MacOSX > * MST's pull request updating the ACPI test blobs > * MST says we need to update the hex files for ACPI too > (otherwise you get a different ACPI blob depending on whether > your build system had iasl or not, if I understand correctly) >=20 > Are there any others? Yes. The libvirt team is a bit annoyed that the pci bus naming was changed for PPC but not all architectures, but without a proper QMP command to probe which naming scheme is in effect. We thought that the naming scheme was going to be universally supplied for all arches, not just PPC. https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/qemu-devel/2014-04/msg01533.html Is this something that can be quickly fixed (perhaps by reverting the PPC patch until a more complete solution is ready), and if so, is it worth doing for 2.0 proper, rather than waiting for 2.0.1? --=20 Eric Blake eblake redhat com +1-919-301-3266 Libvirt virtualization library http://libvirt.org --durbv14R0fjAMvJiB8sJS0q22bXFXHv0B Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: OpenPGP digital signature Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1 Comment: Public key at http://people.redhat.com/eblake/eblake.gpg Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/ iQEcBAEBCAAGBQJTRpIaAAoJEKeha0olJ0NqkegH/RInnd8A0pdF2JG9BsZaZm8C TXSMThUZCvzA+pcq+VfMG0xfF5x82PLyNegbMZL3BS6TUahuFBQ1Bl2mifTQiV24 ZnItq+iw3C4xtQpNEyS/qtXxB4unam2jxD/LznovGAoPQeNVaUpdZlucoYg7uPX4 eh43a1RUuwrrMF7YW4z2RZr1HeqdSgY/vklRTJr1XYDoA31aH3Z/gFUyOV55TgIG GLBSwwCMYwN8Xact0+OOd6DGXUCbqyD2ZrskEBpOvV1/wgXCBD6dLjGvfy9C5Wca +Xb+3STIBHVaLNG7+Jm9J2tH0CK+TvMAjbfb5QuFEKmnXC5DiIJGrRmjJvFklHE= =yXgh -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --durbv14R0fjAMvJiB8sJS0q22bXFXHv0B--