Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH] Config.mk: Update SEABIOS_UPSTREAM_TAG to 442502

["Jan Beulich" <JBeulich@xxxxxxxx>]

>>> On 14.01.16 at 17:44, <ian.campbell@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Thu, 2016-01-14 at 14:44 +0000, Ian Campbell wrote:
>> On Thu, 2016-01-14 at 06:00 -0700, Jan Beulich wrote:
>> > > > > On 14.01.16 at 12:32, <roger.pau@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> > > --- a/Config.mk
>> > > +++ b/Config.mk
>> > > @@ -255,9 +255,10 @@ MINIOS_UPSTREAM_REVISION ?=
>> > > d25773c8afa2f4dbbb466116daeb60159ddd22bd
>> > >  # Thu Dec 3 11:23:25 2015 +0000
>> > >  # mini-os: Include libxentoollog with libxc
>> > >  
>> > > -SEABIOS_UPSTREAM_REVISION ?= rel-1.9.0
>> > > -# Tue Nov 17 09:18:44 2015 -0500
>> > > -# docs: Note v1.9.0 release
>> > > +SEABIOS_UPSTREAM_REVISION ?=
>> > > 44250252eeaefd5e81bae2f73639bd323682217b
>> > > +# Thu Jan 7 12:02:51 2016 -0500
>> > > +# tpm: Do not set TPM in failure mode if menu command fails
>> > > +# NB: we should try to update to a rel-* version before releasing
>> > > Xen.
>> > 
>> > Assuming they cut a 1.9.1 by then including that fix, won't we risk
>> > moving backwards in that case? Wouldn't it be better in such a
>> > situation to follow the ipxe model and apply patches on top of the
>> > most recent release?
>> 
>> Good point.
>> 
>> I shall drop seabios-devel a line re 1.9.1 or 1.10.0 and see what's what.
> 
> In response to my line there is now 1.9-stable branch in seabios.git, which
> contains just the patch of interest. I propose we update to that branch, as
> below (+ appropriate pushes to our seabios.git tree to make the branch
> appear there).

Fine with me, thanks.

Jan


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