From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:59840) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1WYFEu-0005vQ-Ee for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 10 Apr 2014 09:42:04 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1WYFEq-0001E2-8b for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 10 Apr 2014 09:42:00 -0400 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:5227) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1WYFEq-0001Bv-1H for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 10 Apr 2014 09:41:56 -0400 Message-ID: <53469F8D.2040808@redhat.com> Date: Thu, 10 Apr 2014 15:41:33 +0200 From: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?J=E1n_Tomko?= MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <5346921A.2050705@redhat.com> <4FBBA28F-184E-45A4-A7B8-6F4ED4EFC205@suse.de> In-Reply-To: <4FBBA28F-184E-45A4-A7B8-6F4ED4EFC205@suse.de> Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="bJvVeEOJAAWGWNH7N7BHQlCIE7RibONvK" Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] Should we have a 2.0-rc3 ? List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Alexander Graf , Eric Blake Cc: Peter Maydell , "Michael S. Tsirkin" , QEMU Developers , Michael Roth , Anthony Liguori , Paolo Bonzini , =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Andreas_F=E4rber?= This is an OpenPGP/MIME signed message (RFC 4880 and 3156) --bJvVeEOJAAWGWNH7N7BHQlCIE7RibONvK Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On 04/10/2014 02:46 PM, Alexander Graf wrote: >=20 > On 10.04.2014, at 14:44, Eric Blake wrote: >=20 >> 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 th= e >> 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 > Which way works better for you? I'd be perfectly fine with reverting th= e patch. Libvirt is the only reason that path is there in the first place= =2E >=20 If I read the git history correctly, there were two patches changing pci = bus names for ppc in this release, not just one: commit 1b8601b0ea0b91467561e0bbddd52a833e4b2b1a Author: Alexey Kardashevskiy AuthorDate: 2014-03-06 14:11:00 +1100 Commit: Andreas F=E4rber CommitDate: 2014-03-12 20:13:02 +0100 spapr-pci: Change the default PCI bus naming Previously libvirt required the first/default PCI bus to have name "p= ci". Since QEMU can support multiple buses now, libvirt wants "pci.0" now.= This removes custom bus name and lets QEMU make up default names. Signed-off-by: Alexey Kardashevskiy Signed-off-by: Andreas F=E4rber commit 8a0e11045d5f50d300e0ab1ba05f4c8217fb5dcb Author: Alexander Graf AuthorDate: 2013-12-04 12:42:32 +0100 Commit: Alexander Graf CommitDate: 2013-12-20 01:58:01 +0100 PPC: Use default pci bus name for grackle and heathrow There's no good reason to call our bus "pci" rather than let the defa= ult bus name take over ("pci.0"). The big downside to calling it different from anyone else is that too= ls that pass -device get confused. They are looking for a bus "pci.0" ra= ther than "pci". To make life easier for everyone, let's just drop the name override. Signed-off-by: Alexander Graf Jan --bJvVeEOJAAWGWNH7N7BHQlCIE7RibONvK Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: OpenPGP digital signature Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.22 (GNU/Linux) iQIcBAEBAgAGBQJTRp+YAAoJEMr6XT10/wJpVukP/jyZ3+6wV5164N99WSTa9M7Z 8S/9Hu/IqxV6Y/CnInFALBiLJunhA66vOSEXhxBYvlIPkvJisauWGR4lf6s/JIAJ mb3yND57SUbVHG7mVqJYmKyjrV+mSuG2ejggp2L+Pma32aVT8PwAbniyZiGr4LiN apVyniHifDvIaurGQNXHBkCtpeG9gxln1E4NX2jlineHLzwaGeWp9i60L/Z5biL3 PsfEiA3PVgkirWMKGsTGOeu+7An3BqAOxcAN3lKY0LczWBGRlptbomfVHon/RM2L 9dHkjxZHzya9p4JU5vNiTt68NMPxhRDQ65Ohh7tkADV5YlYqSMgw9t0UOhLvmdXX spBpW25FET3EtZqU6o8B0mYG/HNlPJ5/cxt7Y2zclbhMm6GUqu2+tj/P2u0CafZF N6kwhCzvV3qMgX1sAz8QVFVCdilUzoS6kjIwIfDNu2MOLKvPYPw2rsFobAEQx59l uKb2jll/fvWEqD8jHW8qqOTDvs48hkMKc6SA78c8ijurmCLCZfqnJJy9oltfyn79 TUzsbYGnCVvFW64H6hKwXV0vz7ZyYNg9P64ZuuOyrYhA9dxptqsLtTVQH1qC+lRG ru2WYZvDJsEY2wPL+3ZNig4SWaZw9PWFVhoCkdnrCaflJAwVpqwZM4mCge3Obyj/ ha+EKHK1C3LG0F+Fyn9m =6hmN -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --bJvVeEOJAAWGWNH7N7BHQlCIE7RibONvK--