From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:60342) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1WYFIT-0001gB-1y for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 10 Apr 2014 09:45:47 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1WYFIL-0002CS-5B for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 10 Apr 2014 09:45:40 -0400 Received: from cantor2.suse.de ([195.135.220.15]:41123 helo=mx2.suse.de) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1WYFIK-0002CM-HH for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 10 Apr 2014 09:45:32 -0400 Message-ID: <5346A07B.9070608@suse.de> Date: Thu, 10 Apr 2014 15:45:31 +0200 From: Alexander Graf MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <5346921A.2050705@redhat.com> <4FBBA28F-184E-45A4-A7B8-6F4ED4EFC205@suse.de> <53469F8D.2040808@redhat.com> In-Reply-To: <53469F8D.2040808@redhat.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] Should we have a 2.0-rc3 ? List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?J=E1n_Tomko?= , Eric Blake Cc: Peter Maydell , "Michael S. Tsirkin" , QEMU Developers , Michael Roth , Anthony Liguori , Paolo Bonzini , =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Andreas_F=E4rber?= On 10.04.14 15:41, J=E1n Tomko wrote: > On 04/10/2014 02:46 PM, Alexander Graf wrote: >> On 10.04.2014, at 14:44, Eric Blake 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 t= he >>> naming scheme was going to be universally supplied for all arches, no= t >>> 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 t= he patch. Libvirt is the only reason that path is there in the first plac= e. >> > If I read the git history correctly, there were two patches changing pc= i bus > names for ppc in this release, not just one: The main difference is that the g3beige and mac99 targets are not=20 supported by libvirt FWIW :). But I agree that this is messy. And a pretty intrusive change pretty=20 late in the game. Eric, how hard would a special case for this be in=20 libvirt code? Are we talking about a 2 line patch? Alex