On 08/29/2017 11:35 AM, Thomas Huth wrote: > 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 [*] ?
+1 > 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? >
