On 28.08.2017 09:18, Christian Borntraeger wrote: > > > On 08/25/2017 10:29 AM, Cornelia Huck wrote: >> On Fri, 25 Aug 2017 10:21:58 +0200 >> Christian Borntraeger <borntrae...@de.ibm.com> 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) >>> >>> Yes. I am out of office today, so for any aligned(8) patch >>> Acked-by: Christian Borntraeger <borntrae...@de.ibm.com> >>> even for 2.10. >> >> I fear the 2.10 train has already left the station, but any aligned(8) >> patch should be cc:stable. > > I think this could be a topic for QEMU summit. Our process of not allowing > fixes in rcx without requiring an rc(x+1) seems a bit odd. The Linux kernel > style (there are fixes between the last rc and release) seems more balanced > 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?
