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

[Alexander Graf <agraf@suse.de>]

On 10.04.14 14:51, Eric Blake wrote:
> On 04/10/2014 06:46 AM, Alexander Graf wrote:
>> On 10.04.2014, at 14:44, Eric Blake <eblake@redhat.com> wrote:
>>
>>> 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)
>>>>
>>>> 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?
>> Which way works better for you? I'd be perfectly fine with reverting the patch. Libvirt is the only reason that path is there in the first place.
> Given the shortness of the timing, reverting for 2.0, and fixing it
> properly after the release, may be the best path forward (that is, 2.0
> will be no different than 1.7 for what libvirt has to special case,
> whereas all future versions can be properly introspectable, so that
> libvirt has less special casing than what it would need if 2.0 is a
> one-off for PPC).

Works well for me.


Alex