From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:41437) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1eLuOb-0006g4-MA for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 04 Dec 2017 12:19:10 -0500 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1eLuOa-0001Xd-V1 for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 04 Dec 2017 12:19:09 -0500 Received: from mail-ot0-x230.google.com ([2607:f8b0:4003:c0f::230]:33208) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:16) (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1eLuOa-0001XV-PE for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 04 Dec 2017 12:19:08 -0500 Received: by mail-ot0-x230.google.com with SMTP id h9so15383548oti.0 for ; Mon, 04 Dec 2017 09:19:08 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: References: <1512148088-28733-1-git-send-email-mst@redhat.com> <20171203064856-mutt-send-email-mst@kernel.org> From: Peter Maydell Date: Mon, 4 Dec 2017 17:18:47 +0000 Message-ID: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PULL 0/7] pc, pci, virtio: fixes for rc3 List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: "Michael S. Tsirkin" Cc: QEMU Developers On 4 December 2017 at 10:16, Peter Maydell wrote: > On 3 December 2017 at 04:56, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: >> On Fri, Dec 01, 2017 at 06:05:25PM +0000, Peter Maydell wrote: >>> Are any of these so important that we would absolutely refuse >>> to release without the fixes (ie they justify rolling an rc4 >>> that we would otherwise not have needed) ? > >> The msi one is less important it just happened to be queued a while ago >> and I didn't want to rebase all testing. Others are crashers but they >> don't affect everyone. So I wouldn't be sure, but there's also a >> security fix in there, so yes, I suspect we are better off with rc4, and >> if we do I think including others is justified (except maybe the msi >> one, if you feel strongly I'll rebase and drop it). > > The bar has to be set quite high here, because if it turns out > that there are problems with a bug fix then we are out of time > to rework or revert it. And the more fixes we throw in at the > last minute, even if they're individually simple, the more > likely that one of them turns out to have unexpected consequences. > > So: were any of these bugs present in the 2.10 release? If so, > that strongly argues for not trying to fix them at this point. > > With all of these patches plus David Gibson's, that would be > 10 new patches in rc4. That is definitely more than would be > ideal. After some discussion on IRC we decided that these should go in. Thanks for the further information; pull applied to master. -- PMM