Re: [Qemu-devel] Should we have a 2.0-rc3 ?

[Michael S. Tsirkin]

On Sat, Apr 12, 2014 at 08:52:47PM +0300, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 11, 2014 at 06:37:03PM +0100, Peter Maydell wrote:
> > On 10 April 2014 12:17, Peter Maydell <address@hidden> wrote:
> > > So far I know of at least three fixes which should probably
> > > go into 2.0
> > 
> > Status update:
> > Applied:
> >  * ACPI fixes (both sets)
> >  * block queue
> >  * SDL2 relative mode fixes
> >  * fix for virtio-net CVE
> >  * fix for qom-list crash
> >  * my patch to stack-protector check
> > Patches on list but need review/ack and/or not sure whether to apply:
> >  * kvm_physical_sync_dirty_bitmap bug
> >  * my fix to my stack-protector check patch (oops)
> >  * vmxnet3 patches
> 
> I don't think we care about these unless we want to wait for
> the rest of state loading patches too.
> If not, the rule for 2.0 will still be "don't load
> state from malicious sources".

I forgot this is also fixing other issues unrelated to
state loading.
Yes, I think we should include these - they already got some acks.
And as long as we do this, it's probably cleaner to just pick the whole
series.


> > Raised as issues but no patches:
> >  * PCI bus naming
> >  * win64 virtio-scsi regression
> > 
> > Assistance welcomed in moving patches in the last two
> > categories into either "ready to apply" or "not for 2.0" :-)
> > 
> > thanks
> > -- PMM