On Thu, Apr 04, 2013 at 09:52:31AM +0200, Laszlo Ersek wrote:
> On 04/03/13 22:05, Anthony Liguori wrote:
> > Laszlo Ersek <ler...@redhat.com> writes:
> >> Any chance patches 01 to 09 could be considered? Esp. 06 which removes
> >> an out-of-bounds access (an innocent-looking one, admittedly).
> >>
> >> I'm OK too if the series is dropped (patch 11 was the main motivation,
> >> but the interface that it extends was deemed unsuitable going forward on
> >> the seabios list). I'd just like to hear the maintainer with
> >> jurisdiction say the NAK. ("Too expensive even to review for too little
> >> gain" is a good reason.)
> >
> > The whole thing looks pretty nice to me.
>
> That's awesome, thank you very much!
>
> > I'll merge the full series in
> > a day or so unless anyone objects.
>
> For transparency's sake: Kevin, this is where you'd object to patch 11:
> it adds an MADT to the existing fw_cfg blob, which, combined with an
> older (=current) SeaBIOS, leads to a duplicated MADT; see also the blurb
> in 00/11 which quotes that from
Right. I don't think we should commit patch 11 as that would cause
the current QEMU/SeaBIOS to incorrectly create two MADT tables. We
should instead create the new MADT in a separate fw_cfg entry.
The other patches in the series look sane to me.
-Kevin
