Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH] Config.mk: update OVMF changeset

[Fabio Fantoni <fabio.fantoni@xxxxxxx>]

Il 23/10/2015 14:56, Ian Campbell ha scritto:
> On Fri, 2015-10-23 at 13:43 +0100, Stefano Stabellini wrote:
> > > We have no existing stable baseline for that arch, and no testing or
> > > reason to believe that cb9a7eb (the Config.mk version currently
> > > referenced by 4.6) as being any good at all on that platform,
> > > whether we backport a couple of fixes to it or not.
> > It is true that ovmf arm64 is not in osstest, but I ran the test
> > manually and I know that cb9a7eb plus the one backport works, which is
> > just a build fix. In addition the original work for arm64 support was
> > done far earlier than cb9a7eb.
> 20% of the patches since then are ARM related and I'm not sure that a quick
> smoke test is a high enough bar to add something in a stable point release
> (it might suffice for adding to the development branch and subsequently
> releasing, after plenty of time and -rc's, test days etc)
>
> > > I'm not convinced that taking some arbitrary old (although not as old
> > > as I
> > > thought) OVMF tree which we have tested to our satisfaction and
> > > released on
> > > x86, slapping a couple of arm64 backports on it and saying "this is now
> > > a
> > > good and stable thing to use on arm64" makes it good enough to release
> > > as
> > > ovmf arm64 in 4.6.1, encouraging our users to go about using etc.
> > >
> > > Far better to be honest about it for now and point arm64 users at a
> > > more
> > > bleeding edge ovmf release outside of our own stable releases and
> > > prepare
> > > to do something better in 4.7.
> >   
> > Are you suggesting we don't create an OVMF branch for 4.6 until the
> > first backport request comes along which we think is appropriate, then
> > we decide what to do?  I would rather have an OVMF branch for 4.6 now,
> > even if it is just cb9a7eb with no backports.
> I'm not against having an OVMF branch ready for any potential bug fixes
> which might crop up in the feature set we released and in future we should
> probably create one as a matter of course as part of branching.
>
> What I don't like is adding OVMF/arm64 as a new feature in a point release
> with very little of the usual confidence we would have in something we
> would add in a 4.6.0, let alone a 4.6.1.
>
> Ian.
>
> _______________________________________________
> Xen-devel mailing list
> Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel
A recent ovmf patch (already tested) I think is good to backport is:
0f34a051104e2b1b9123d56d48673de4b21bc533 - OvmfPkg: XenPvBlkDxe: handle 
empty cdrom drives
Can be considered please? Without any domU using ovmf and having empty 
cdrom (required for cd hotplug) freeze on boot start.
There is also another important occasional bug (reported and linked also 
by Stefano Stabellini) but without solution for now where is good 
backport any fixes related when will be done.
Thanks for any reply and sorry for my bad english.

_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel