From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:54941) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1dmcvk-0003iC-1z for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 29 Aug 2017 05:35:33 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1dmcvg-0000FT-TH for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 29 Aug 2017 05:35:32 -0400 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:34514) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1dmcvg-0000Ey-Jk for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 29 Aug 2017 05:35:28 -0400 References: <20170824171355.29d1ec32.cohuck@redhat.com> <30333b41-508d-f9a3-ac2d-4830a7791475@redhat.com> <34f0f307-d16f-7c76-1589-fa06252f6d09@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <97b35c4d-e897-c18a-525f-1fa1a7560776@de.ibm.com> <20170825092008.12484e6a.cohuck@redhat.com> <20170825102950.736647be.cohuck@redhat.com> <2fdd5a70-6339-c4ec-c13c-d6f96d7abfc9@de.ibm.com> From: Thomas Huth Message-ID: Date: Tue, 29 Aug 2017 11:35:22 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <2fdd5a70-6339-c4ec-c13c-d6f96d7abfc9@de.ibm.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] S390 bios breaks in qemu 2.10.rc3 List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Christian Borntraeger , Cornelia Huck Cc: Peter Maydell , David Hildenbrand , Farhan Ali , QEMU Developers , Halil Pasic , "Collin L. Walling" , Michael Roth On 28.08.2017 09:18, Christian Borntraeger wrote: >=20 >=20 > On 08/25/2017 10:29 AM, Cornelia Huck wrote: >> On Fri, 25 Aug 2017 10:21:58 +0200 >> Christian Borntraeger wrote: >> >>> On 08/25/2017 09:20 AM, Cornelia Huck wrote: >> >>>> OK, to recap: >>>> >>>> - the current pre-built bios seems fine >>>> - rebuilding the bios may yield a version that fails on some systems >>>> (different compiler?) >>>> - adding aligned(8) looks like the right thing to do >>>> - it seems to fix the problem, but on at least one system something >>>> still seems off (under investigation) =20 >>> >>> Yes. I am out of office today, so for any aligned(8) patch >>> Acked-by: Christian Borntraeger >>> even for 2.10. >> >> I fear the 2.10 train has already left the station, but any aligned(8) >> patch should be cc:stable. >=20 > I think this could be a topic for QEMU summit. Our process of not allow= ing > fixes in rcx without requiring an rc(x+1) seems a bit odd. The Linux ke= rnel > style (there are fixes between the last rc and release) seems more bala= nced > as long as we establish some safety nets. This sounds like a good idea to me, yes. And maybe we could also ease the situation a little bit by providing the first stable .1 release already two or three weeks after the .0 release [*] ? Then these "we are not 100% sure whether this is a severe blocker or not" patches could simply be provided to the public with that .1 release instead of blocking the QEMU master branch in freeze state... Thomas [*] I know that means more additional work for Michael - sorry for that ... but at least we should talk about this, I think. Maybe someone else could also help with the releases if it's too much work for one person?